User talk:Chaetodipus/Archive 2

Please review

Hi Mikemoral

Please review:

Current review queue as of 22:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC):

For inspiration here is heaps of apples and a coconut drink:


Happy holidays,

--Gryllida (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gryllida: Hi, it's been a long while since I've been around on-wiki. I've admittedly not popped in to check on Wikinews very often as of late, and any Wikimedia activity has been limited to occasional minor edits on Wikipedia. I'd be glad to come back to contributing here and Wikipedia, though it'll take be a while to get back into the swing of things.
Almost certainly I'm going to have to relearn how to review articles here. I'm sure it's been years and years since I've last reviewed one. For various reasons, including even more computer problems, I've not really been around, but ideally with a finally working machine contributing should be loads easier from now on. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 08:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad you have the computer working. :-) I think that you are right and it may take a while to get back to reading the drafts and reviewing. As far as I recall, the reviewing procedures are unchanged; the only change that I can recall since 2011 is a new instance of dupdet running at Also there is a tool to notify you of new submissions by email, and this page has its description and how to sign up. Gryllida (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Goodness, are we measuring from 2011? We have some significant documentation since then. The Wikinews:Newsworthiness page was drastically overhauled in about 2014; it might as well be a whole new page. Wikinews:Pillars of writing was written mostly in 2012. Wikinews:Neutrality finally got written down in January of this year. I wonder what else I may be forgetting. --Pi zero (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like I'll need to get to some reading; the email notification system seems pretty interesting, I'll take a closer look soon. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Thought of one more, so far, though I feel it still needs improvement: Wikinews:Attribution, which was written in 2015–2016. Created so we'd have something to point at when telling people to attribute things, which we do often.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Benin, Nigeria join African Union continental free trade bloc

Published. --Pi zero (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review! Sadly I'm much rustier than I thought. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 20:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some ticklish difficulties; review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I dimly remember File:Wikinews.jpg.jpg as the visual component of some sort of spam, at least months ago. Should be straightforward to check... --Pi zero (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm, no, not straightforward. There's no record of it ever being deleted from here. --Pi zero (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I can't find any record of it ever being on en.wn. From the dates of edits by the author, looks like it was only about two weeks ago (so presumably it only seems like months). --Pi zero (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pi zero: own work with no metadata. This is really of no use and should be moved to commons where it would be deleted. Or delete it from here. Also pinging @Green Giant:.
•–• 13:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pi zero: are you thinking of this edit, perhaps? I’m going to look into deleting the image. --Green Giant (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd noticed the user created a userpage [1] which led me down a rabbit hole of their Commons contributions where they uploaded stuff from varuous websites to Commons using cross-wiki upload. Honestly I can't even remember what Wikinews.jpg.jpg was beyond I think a selfie? Though stuff uploaded to commons came from en.wikinews apparently. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 16:31, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Userspacing failed articles

We've been deliberately cutting back on this practice in the past year or so, especially for synthesis. We'd had some difficulty with some users using the project in a rather bloggish way, as if they didn't care whether articles got published as long as they could permanently web-host their articles here. The learning-from-experience aspect of userspacing tends to be rather weak anyway, I've observed, because the articles userspaced are likely to contain unvetted problems. --Pi zero (talk) 12:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noted. The experience aspect is weak, but in this case it's a relatively new contributor and they don't seem to be blogging away. The useful thing though is the review comments as feedback. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 23:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also noted. We've struggled for as long as I've been here with the memory-hole created by deleting unsuccessful articles, even though deleting them (most of the time) is also essential to our workflow. --Pi zero (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recently moved one because at the time I was too tired to evaluate it. Well, it wasn't a "failed" article, but something else. I am leaning towards deleting it. --SVTCobra 00:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which article was this? I took a look but apparently I can't handle using a trackpad instead of a proper mouse :P —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 00:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is currently this User:J-Man11/3rd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles Formed. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I remember seeing that one. It looks like encylopedic content to me which is a reason for speedy, or at least userfying over to Wikipedia as a draft rather than keeping it here. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 00:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Strictly speaking —this makes no difference whatever to your entirely proper edit to Category:Dominican Republic— the Caribbean is part of our North American region. --Pi zero (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I view category:Caribbean as a cross-over category, much like Category:Middle East. Rather than a a strict geo-cat, they describe an area which straddle borders of traditional geo-cats based on tectonic plates, etc, because they have something else in common. On a different scale, Category:Kashmir is a distinct region, but it is in three countries. Category:Russia is a nation in two continents. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and I will add, I do not think Category:Caribbean is strictly part of Category:North America. Nations such as Aruba are technically Category:South America (though I didn't check if that's where we have it). --SVTCobra 02:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aruba is sorted in Caribbean and Netherlands. My change to the Dominican Republic cat was more to keep things consistent rather than make a statement about where the Caribbean is. Though, it might be best in the N. and S. America cats. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 13:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The country cats are largely geocats but also have political/jurisdictional significance. And, I've gradually come to appreciate, the region categories are not continents even though we often casually call them such. They're news beats, the determination of which news desk is responsible for those areas. --Pi zero (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Political parties?

What's your thinking on putting politicians in party categories? We've done that quite a lot, iirc; it's seemed to me a natural and useful practice, though certainly not consistent with SVTCobra's recent suggestion to keep person categories out of topic cats Your thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 06:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sort of thought the pratice was to not categorize politicians into party cats. I was thinking about categorizing as "Members of the GOP", like with the Senate cat, then having the party member cats be subcats of the party cats. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 06:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some points of interest (after a bit of sleep).
  • Historically, persons were not categorized by political party for the simple reason that there were no political-party categories. The deficit of categories and categorization is far too vast to fill at once, so we've proceeded mostly by slow growth; allowing actions that do just a tiny increment and leave things incomplete —even, more visibly incomplete than before the increment— has been essential in making it possible for things to move forward. Accordingly, adding political parties to persons has been a slow and perpetually incomplete process. I've been migrating things in that direction, though.
  • Afaik, the purpose of keeping persons out of topic categories is to avoid cluttering the topic categories, so that other subcats of the topic don't get hard to find in the clutter. It's not immediately clear to me what other kinds of subcats a political party would have, for them to get lost. Moreover, whenever we have a political-party cat it seems likely we would have persons in that party. So if the only way to link a person to a party is to create a shadow-category for members-of-the-party, we would expect to create a shadow-cat for every party, and then put nothing in the party-cat except that shadow-cat. As I describe this now, it sounds to me like a great deal of complicating excess machinery without an apparent practical benefit.
(I'd be interested in SVTCobra's thoughts on this.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can say it is inconsistently applied right now, but if done uniformly, I can accept it. It is akin to sportspeople being in the category for their team or business people in the category for their company. I don't even think we necessarily need to make 'members of X party'. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The main reason I had removed the party categories from the two politicians (Rubio and Grassley?) was to keep them in line with how it's apparently being done now. I wasn't quite aware there was a move toward including politicians in their respective party cats. Adding politcians to their party-cats makes sense to me to do so. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 01:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have run into a snag re freshness — there was a further development on Tuesday. --Pi zero (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drat, I failed to follow-up on the story; if the publication deadline can't be met, the content can possibly be saved for a future follow-up story, I sense there's going to be charges, or at least further federal (or even state/county) investigation into LA City. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 01:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a note to myself, it seems PwC attorneys are set to depose the city attorney in the coming weeks, so there will likely be a court record to find of the deposition. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 01:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: welcome-a-bit

Hi Mikemoral,

Thanks for signing up! I've set up the list page, where your topics of interest are listed. Because you haven't selected any, it is the 'Developing' category name, where any new drafts are. The script will see it and send you an email page message shortly.

Your first message will be a list of what's currently under development in the topics of your interest. This might be a long list; this is normal. The future messages will only contain newly created submissions.

When a new draft is created I personally prefer to leave a new message at the talk page of the author, where they discover it more quickly -- perhaps more quickly than at the talk page of the article.

Please let me know if there are any issues with this message delivery. It is designed to encourage the recipient's involvement in helping newcomers, but simply testing the message delivery and reporting bugs would be greatly appreciated!!!

--Gryllida (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I was a bit unclear what topics to select, though all drafts seems a good option for now. I got the first email a-okay, and I'll be sure to report back any problems or suggestions. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 15:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gryllida: If I wanted to switch to talkpage delivery, would I just make User:Mikemoral/wab/dev/wiki then delete User:Mikemoral/wab/dev/email? I don't want to break things here. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 20:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is correct. You can do it by a page move. Ensure you also include the talk page, where the tool keeps a timestamp of the last notification. Gryllida (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 22:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Btw, thanks

for creating the NPR category (not to lose track of that, amidst discussions of inclusion criteria). That's one we've needed for a while. --Pi zero (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I'll even come close to finishing this before it crosses the outer freshness horizon.

  • Unless someone causes me to stop, I'll likely continue at least until midnight UTC, taking a bite out of the thing and getting a much better sense for the overall size of the task; if I'm on a roll at midnight I might run somewhat past that.
  • If the piece can be refreshed or even refocused (Gatwicked), that would be good.
  • If we don't find a way to do that, we'll take our lessons from it and march on.

--Pi zero (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pi zero: If the task is too much to manage in such a short time, a refocus I could do is cover select bills as they are signed, or the general mass of new laws which could take effect if bills go unsigned by the Oct 13 deadline. Am alternative is to cover the laws taking effect in the new year, as a prepared story in a similar sort of article. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 21:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which reminds me: we really have to change how we handle prepared stories. The current procedure was meant to save time at the event, but was set up before the age of review. To save time in the age of review we need "pre-review" to be part of the preparation, done before the event, so that when the event happens most of the review has already been done. Perhaps what I'm doing now is sort-of pre-review, for however we deploy the material hereafter. --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm thinking this would be best saved for a new laws of 2020 article. Only "emergency" bills can take immediate effect, iirc, so most bills would take effect Jan 1. The article was far too much to research and write to make it in the 72 hours post-Friday, and obviously a slight review nightmare. Plus a new laws of 2020 article would let us cover some of the already-signed laws, like the vaccination stuff which has been rather controversial here in CA (there was the "red liquid" incident), and some of the animal-related bills already signed. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll probably stop this review reasonably soon, at some good stopping point. --Pi zero (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I stopped. You can see what I did. Seemed pretty well put together; the difficulty, as you're aware, is the quantity. --Pi zero (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I got your message on my article,"Xenophobia Tears".

But what do you mean by the article must have two indepedent sources? I don't understand that term. And how do I register or apply for the next Wikimania to take place in Thailand? I didn't see any registration link, and the eventbrite website I was directed to does not have any special email for people who need to be financed to apply through (It only has a page for people who have the funds to pay for meals,tickets and so on). Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PoetryVacancy (talkcontribs)

@PoetryVacancy: Wikinews articles require that you show where you got the information from by citing your sources. Follow that link for more information about citing sources. Wikinews doesn't arrange Wikimania, you might want to check meta:Wikimania. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 23:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken urls

Happened to notice a case where a news site (CBC, I think) was still providing a source article at a different url, which you marked as a brokenURL and archived url. I think sometime recently (this summer?) I handled a similar case by simply altering the url of the citation. I'm not immediately sure what our philosophy on this should be, treating a move as a broken/archived case or simply a tweak to the url; is there a line between the two types, and if so what is it? Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pi zero: Somehow I'd missed seeing this message, sorry. I think if we're updating the link to a source we should make it clear to the interested reader whether it was the original link used, or if we went back into the archives and changed a link to the source, even if the CBC or another source simply was updating their URL schemes. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. That makes a certain sense; I think I'm willing to be on board with that. I wonder if we really want to call it "archived", or something else, and if we want it different how ought we to do handle it without making that mechanism more complicated than it is (as it's already imho on the outer edge of how complicated one can handle reasonably). Though I do want to introduce semi-automation, I don't want to introduce things that can't be handled without that semi-automation. Some things to think about... --Pi zero (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pi zero: The solution to saying something other than "archived" would be "updated URL", or something of that nature. A small part of me wants to go through the archives and update deadlinks but that's monstrous undertaking, and would require some planning. There is a Python script, iirc, that checks links to see if they're valid still and could be a useful tool in that. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 02:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found itmikemoral (talk · contribs) 02:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx; marking that reference. Though I tend not to use those sorts of tools myself (I ruthlessly hold out for wiki-markup-based semi-automation), I do study such things with interest.

Size of curation tasks doesn't daunt me. We have a bunch of gargantuan ones already. I whittle at them by hand, getting a little done while also getting a feel for them and thinking about aspects of semi-automating them. Part of my theory of how software should be developed for wikis (besides believing the goal should be to let assistants be written entirely in wiki markup) is that it must only be done by people deeply involved in the actual operation of the wiki, because only those people have the sort of contextual knowledge that must inform every decision made in such development from highest-level to smallest detail. Figures, from that, I should be continually doing some of such tasks myself. (An obvious example is updating wikilinks on each article, which mostly, though not exclusively, means using {{w}} for all wikilinks; if I expected to do the whole thing the way I'm doing it now —which I do not expect— at a ballpark estimate it ought to take another fifty years.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When I get a chance later, I want to try running the script. Running Python scripts is about the limit of my technical expertise is reckon. Supposedly it outputs a text file of broken links, and it can go category by category, so monthly archives would be doable I'd think. Archival curation is a task that surely never ends. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 04:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pi zero: I ran the script. There's rather a lot of pages in my cursory search. I posted the output file to User:Mikemoral/sandbox2. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 09:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been thinking about the potential for false positives with such a tool. Depends on how it does its check, but here are a couple of possibilities.
  • Any publisher that doesn't have a target either here or on en.wp. In the body of an article, we aren't supposed to allow a wikilink if clicking on it will cause a page-not-found message; but the publisher field is an exception: we provide a link there even if there's going to be nothing on the other end. If those count as broken links, there may be a bunch of them.
  • If by any chance the target of an #ifexist: magic word, when the answer is "no", counts as a broken link, that would mean that every {{w}} that doesn't link locally would show up as a broken link. That would give false positives for every page in Category:Pages with defaulting non-local links, which at this writing contains 7813 pages (including 646 categories) and, if we completed converting pages to use {{w}}, ought to contain most of the pages in mainspace plus change, likely about 20 thousand. Hopefully it doesn't count those, but we should beware the possibility it does.
Actually, most of the older archives would now only use {{w}} for the publisher links.
--Pi zero (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chiefly what the script is checking for is if webpages externally linked are getting 404 or other errors. The ideal way to run the script is to run it once weekly on all pages on the wiki. It writes all the pages returning errors to some database file (or something), then when you run the script it again, it will check all the links again and find what's still deadlinked, or now deadlinked. The problem I see with it is that it will have false negatives, that it finds links that don't 404, but redirect to the mainpage, or some nonsense page. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 21:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirects for new categories

Hi Mike. I noticed you are creating the redirects first. As Pi zero pointed out a week or two ago, this creates a situation where a {{w}} link in articles don't have a valid target. Pi said best practices is to create the category first, populate it, and then create the redirect. I know you are creating the categories hot on the heels of the redirects, but in case you get interrupted in the work or whatever else could go wrong, I just thought I'd mention it. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll keep that in mind. I'm trying to work out a workflow for making these hockey categories as there's rather a lot of categories that need making. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 09:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 18:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 01:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 13:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 19:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 06:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 01:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 02:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 10:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 17:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 09:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 18:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 23:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 02:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 17:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 19:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 00:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 23:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 18:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 02:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 04:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 19:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 04:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 11:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 21:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 08:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 16:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 19:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 21:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 09:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 15:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 17:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 05:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 19:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 03:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 21:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 04:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 04:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 14:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 14:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New RfA - acagastya - LINK

Hi Mikemoral

Please consider commenting.

I pinged you previously, but there was no response. This may be the last notification before the vote is closed.

Also, merry Christmas!

--Gryllida (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gryllida: Hello, I have to apologize but obligations have kept me busy and away. It looks like the vote is still open, so I'll take a look. I really do wish I could find more time for contributing to various things, but alas that's just not the case. Merry belated Christmas, and happy new year! —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 17:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you.
Please check this brainstorm pit when you can.
Regards, - Gryllida (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 23:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 23:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 10:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 22:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 00:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 21:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 06:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 01:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 08:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 21:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 23:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 11:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 01:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 23:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 01:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 05:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 19:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 04:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 15:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 19:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 05:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 23:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 10:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 19:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 20:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 04:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 02:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 06:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 13:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 08:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews recent additions 23:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)