2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018



Don't forget to sight edits like this! That's the second time in a row. It's no longer done automatically when a reviewer edits and already-sighted article; in fact, it hasn't been for some time. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh, am I allowed to do that? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 11:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
...Of course. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about that, I didn't realise. So I just hit the 'Accept revision' button to sight the edit? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 11:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
That's how it's done, yes.

Be very careful, when sighting your own edit, that somebody else didn't make another edit that you would also be sighting (the other edit would be visible in the diff, and it would say something about some number of intermediate edits not shown). Though it might sound wildly unlikely, I've found it can happen maybe once in a blue moon (and blue moons come around about once every fifteen months :-).

Adding your Wikinewsie category is thoroughly uncontroversial, and doing it with HotCat makes it well nigh inconceivable to accidentally do something different than intended; so, no problem whatsoever with self-sighting in that case. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 12:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Election article


I've already submitted Conservatives win majority in UK General Election for review. Do you want to merge the two stories together? —Tom Morris (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Well, this is awkward. Tell you what: why don't we incorporate the content of your article into mine, since they both significantly overlap? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 16:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've modified my article to incorporate some of your info and sources, although you can tamper with it as you wish. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 17:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, I've rather hastily edited it with some more stuff. I'm going AFK for the rest of the evening, but can respond on IRC for a while. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

UK Independence Party reject leader's resignation


I was uncomfortable, as I was reviewing it, that there was only one source for the focal event. We generally ask for two mutually independent sources corroborating the focus, which can serve many different functions but in this case seems more relevant to verification. On a few occasions I recall taking two sources corroborating a focus where one source comes before the focus and shows it was anticipated, and the second confirms that it actually happened; but here afaics the earlier source doesn't anticipate the later event. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

To be fair, you're absolutely right. There was only one source for the article's focal point. There are two there now; additionally, I have sourced all the information included in the article. I hope this helps. --Rayboy8 (talk) (contributions) 20:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply



Btw, I can't access articles in the New York Times; we suspect they may paywall their articles for anyone in North America. So in review it I'd expect to drop that source and cut anything I didn't find elsewhere. --Pi zero (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's annoying. Shall I just remove information from The New York Times source? --Rayboy8 (talk) (contributions) 22:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
It is annoying, yes. Um. If you know just what came from the NYT source, and you can reasonably remove it, that would certainly be vastly easier for me to review (supposing I'm the one who reviews it). --Pi zero (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
It is done. --Rayboy8 (talk) (contributions) 23:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)Reply



Good to see you again!
acagastya PING ME! 17:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)Reply



You still around??--Bddpaux (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

privilege expiry applied


As you requested at RFP. You're still part of the Wikinews family, of course, and welcome here. --Pi zero (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Busy elsewhere? We understand, but this is a notice of privilege expiry!

Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.

Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use. You can view your user rights log here.
Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.



I wanna know how you chat with another people on Wikipedia 👀 Yhondi (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply