2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
2011-14 2015-17 2018 2019 2020
2021 2022 2023

Working on files


Hello! I noticed, that you are also working on files. That is great. I wonder if you could have a look at Category:Media files on Wikimedia Commons and see if any of the files could be deleted? I think it would make it easier to clean up files on Wikinews if those that are on Commons are deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am almost done resolving the Category you listed above. I have also handled some of your speedy deletion requests. I am bothered by some of those, however. I don't fully understand why you call images "unfree" or ineligible for Wikinews just because they have been uploaded with a non-commercial or no-derivatives clause. Sure, they are ineligible for Commons as it goes against that project's mission statement, but that is exactly why they have been uploaded locally. Cheers, SVTCobra 01:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! According to wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy free files are those with a "Free Content License". According to the definition at https://freedomdefined.org/Definition/1.0 it means it can be "copied and/or modified, by anyone, for any purpose". So non-commercial and no-derivates are not defined as a free work. Same is written at Wikinews:Fair_use#Local_uploads_vs._Wikimedia_Commons "Free content includes images in the public domain, under Creative Commons licenses (except for the "non-commercial" or "no derivatives" variants), ...".
All non-free works are forbidden on Wikimedia projects including Wikinews unless there is an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) that allows it. Wikinews have an EDP and according to Wikinews:Fair use "Wikinews is more restrictive about fair use than Wikipedia." and "The use of non-free media outside the main article namespace does not constitute fair use, and is not permitted." and "Any use not covered by this whitelist is not allowed.". So non-free files is only allowed under very strict rules and if they are not in use they should be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 11:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
OK. Give me some time to unpack and research the information you have given me. Happy New Year! SVTCobra 11:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Happy New Year to you too! MGA73 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Another think now we talk about fair use. I think Photo Essay: Cherry Blossoms Bloom in DC should be deleted because the photos violate fair use. Also see Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance#File_clean_up_to_do_list (at the bottom of the discussion). --MGA73 (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I haven't gotten further, but with the Cherry Blossoms, I am going to say that is not a fair use doctrine case. The creator (photographer) is the same person who uploaded the images. He also wrote the article in which they were used. Fair use is about using someone else's creative works. Clearly, that is not the case here. User:Aselman simply did not want derivatives made of his work. I can see this will be quite some debate. Cheers, SVTCobra 15:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Glædeligt nytår, forresten. Jeg har lige opdaget at du er dansk. Vær forsigtig med fyrværkeriet. Sidste gang jeg var i Danmark gik det næsten galt for mig. SVTCobra 15:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Tak i lige måde! Ja, jeg er dansk. Min hund kan ikke lide fyrværkeri, så de var et stille nytår. Det vildeste var at dronningen går af. Jeg så først din besked lige nu. Håber du kom godt ind i 2024. Eftersom du lige har skrevet til mig, så ved jeg at du er i live. Men håber at du ikke bare har 10 fingre, men at du også havde en festlig aften. --MGA73 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Jo, tak, jeg kom ind i 2024 med alle fingerne. Men jeg bor ikke i Danmark og fyrværkeri er ulovligt og ikke en del af traditionen. Alstå, byen har et stort fyrværkeri show ved midnat, men folk skyder dem ikke selv. Det gør de d. 4. juli tilgengæld, på trods af forbudet. Ja det var et shok med Margrethe. Min søster (som stadig bor i Danmark) sendte SMS ligeså snart HKM sagde det i nytårstalen. SVTCobra 20:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doing better.


I'm trying to write better, thank you! BigKrow (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am glad to hear it. SVTCobra 22:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Quick question about reviewer flag


Hello, you seem to be the most experienced user here, so I figured you might be able to answer this. I’m interested in working on the article review backlog, as articles are often borderline non-news by the time they’re published. Of course, I doubt that I’d pass a formal request right now since I have written only two articles and neither has been published. I understand that there are no set-in-stone rules, but what would you say is a ballpark level of experience (time-wise and articles-wise) to be given the reviewer flag? Thanks in advance! Thriftycat (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Obviously I can't speak for him, but generally there isn't even a ballpark estimate of experience even just one Wikinewsie could give where they would support you. As in, it can vary immensely from one prospective reviewer (or admin or whatever) to another. Individual reputation is taken seriously in the absence of "AGF". But everyone who has become a reviewer since about 2014 has had at least about a year's experience (actively writing and absorbing institutional knowledge) with, I think, two exceptions — one had about three months' experience, but was very cautious about reviewing, and the other was me, which was in February when I had only about six months' experience. And, well, I screwed up a lot of stuff. For now, perhaps concentrate on writing and copyediting articles. Heavy Water (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks! Thriftycat (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I am in favor of more rapid advancement of permissions, given the extreme lack of active editors. Such editors, should still show a keen understanding of policies and a high level of competence. What you can do, if it peaks your interest, is to do as much as possible to bring submissions up to standard, prior to a formal review. This, as well as submitting your own articles, is a good way to demonstrate a firm grasp of our writing policies and could lower the burden on Reviewers. Cheers, SVTCobra 13:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yep, the lack of activity was my main concern. I think that I'll stay active doing the things you suggested and request the flag in a couple months. Thanks again to both of you, and thanks a lot for helping keep the project alive! Thriftycat (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply



im back but with a koller usszername.... Cruffa (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC) bye @BigKrow @SVTCobraReply

One more....


I thought of this one also, @BiggieNutNorris, or does this come up not found? It was saved on my accounts with passwords??? BigKrow (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@BiggyNutNorris? Is this one valid? Thanks. BigKrow (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I am not finding that as a registered account. I tried a few variations on the name. Nothing found. SVTCobra 20:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The account exists, but it hasn’t been used locally. Thriftycat (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Aha! Makes sense then. SVTCobra 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you both. BigKrow (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

No response?


You busy or something? I asked you questions about the story, no reply. Thanks. @SVTCobra BigKrow (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Heavy Water


Still around? BigKrow (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, as recently as yesterday. SVTCobra 00:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
K just checking thnx BigKrow (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply



Hi, just a heads up I am going to sleep for the night, EST. Have a good one and thank you for the help on the story! I'll try to make some more edits tomorrow, take care. BigKrow (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You moved File:Ottobock workshop 2012-08-31 12.35.58.jpg to Commons and I think the remaining files in the article can be moved too. However the article says Ottobrock but I think the correct name is Ottoboc (without the "r"). Perhaps you can check and fix? --MGA73 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The typo(s) in the article has been fixed. Thanks. SVTCobra 12:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

IP editors are repeating tag removal here, you may need to consider further action. Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not much can be done when the IP numbers are constantly changing. But thanks for the info. SVTCobra 13:38, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewing an article on Friday


Hi @SVTCobra, I'm new to Wikinews and was hoping to have my story 2024 USA Indoor Track and Field Championships Day 1 (title pending) reviewed quickly after the day of competition ends this Friday, around 10:30-11pm ET. @BigKrow recommended I ask you about this on my talk page. Do you know if you would be available to do that, or if there is another way I should be requesting this ahead of time? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't make any promises as I am on the road with a non-fixed schedule, but I will try and see if there is time this weekend. Cheers, SVTCobra 22:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SVTCobra, thanks. I've decided to simply combine the two days of coverage into one article, so I plan on submitting it for review Saturday around 6:30pm ET. --Habst (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
The article is ready for review now here, thanks! --Habst (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @SVTCobra, I was wondering if you think you would be able to review the article before it goes stale and gets deleted, or approve Asheiou's RfP so that they can review it? I'm very grateful for your work, and in the long term I hope to recruit more reviewers and maybe become one myself one day to help take the burden off you and @Heavy Water being the only active reviewers. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi @SVTCobra, I was wondering if you had a chance to look at this? I would still really appreciate a review of my first article submitted Saturday; I want to get it reviewed and hopefully published before it's marked as stale and deleted. --Habst (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I am sorry, I have not had a contiguous period of time to sit down and give it a full review. I do see, Heavy Water gave it a review and left some suggestions for improvements. Cheers, SVTCobra 16:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@SVTCobra, thank you. I wanted to say I greatly appreciate your work here, and obviously neither you nor anyone is obligated to use your free time to review my article. Quickly after Heavy Water reviewed the article, before your comment was posted I addressed his comments here, updated the article, and submitted it for re-review. Do you think that you could handle the re-review?
If you do not have time for a full review, maybe you could just handle the "copyright" and "verifiability" aspects, as Heavy Water has already reviewed the Newsworthiness, NPOV, and Style criteria — for those criteria, maybe you could just assess whether or not my improvements addressed their concerns?
If the initial review was done last Saturday or earlier in the week, I think there would be less urgency to complete the process before it goes stale. But unfortunately despite contacting at least four other reviewers since last Wednesday, I was unable to secure a review until this morning, so I am trying to address the concerns and get it quickly re-reviewed. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Question about deleted redirect


Hi, I see you deleted the redirect at this title per Special:Log/SVTCobra just now, under WN:SD#R-discretionary. That point reads that an article has to be published to delete an incoming redirect to it, but the target article is currently awaiting re-review after being reviewed for the first time this morning, and hasn't been published yet.

Does this mean that the article will be published? Thanks, --Habst (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, not necessarily. We try to get rid of all redirects that may occur prior to publishing. It's just easier to do it during the development stages as there are often multiple renames which can generate a bunch of double redirects. Cheers, SVTCobra 16:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. In that case, I have updated the policy at WN:SD#R-discretionary here (Special:Diff/4769624), to better reflect current practice, because the old policy said that the article would have to already be published to delete a redirect. --Habst (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please take a look at Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Asheiou


Hello, Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions says that "If a request has been open for over a week, please leave a note at the talk page of an administrator". There are no objections here. Can you take a look at this request? MathXplore (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

In practice, requests at FR/RFP have usually remained open for months in the last decade, and the burden of proof lies with supporters to demonstrate there is a consensus in favor. There has been only one vote in total. Heavy Water (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Heavy Water, if that is the policy in practice, then I think an administrator should put that on the page. I greatly respect the current admins for their work, but the bigger problem than this specific RfP is I don't think the wiki is active enough on administrative tasks necessary for the wiki to function. --Habst (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't notice that FR/RFPs usually remained open for months. Thank you for your information. You may want to consider to add them at the RFP documentations. MathXplore (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
MathX and Heavy Water: Yes, the RFP has been open for a while. Yes, the policy aims for a turnaround in about a week. I am not, however, going to give the permission based on a single vote of support from a new user. That doesn't quite add up to community consensus. If I deem there is no consensus, then it is a fail, which I don't think is fair, either. I have been impressed by this user's contributions and will quite likely vote in support. I am, unfortunately, not at home and my ability to contribute to Wikinews is sporadic at best. Deleting and blocking spammers/vandals is eating my time. I thank you for the reminder. Cheers, SVTCobra 04:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MathXplore, Heavy Water, Habst:. At a second glance, I see the questions/comments section is very extensive and I will attempt to get into it when I can put a few hours of uninterrupted time together. --SVTCobra 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply



Do you have any idea who has access to Scoop?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

SVTCobra isn't on it. I might be — I can't remember if I was put on it and I don't know if I don't see anything in my wn-reporters inbox because nothing's been sent to scoop recently or because I'm not on scoop. Acagastya, LivelyRatification, and RockerballAustralia are. Not sure if there's anyone else. Heavy Water (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply