Open main menu

User talk:SVTCobra/2018 Archive

Active discussions
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

{{Under review}}

That template was created for a reason. It is not optional.
•–• 14:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I remember for years we rarely if ever used it, even though it had been created (I see) back in 2008. I'm not sure how we ever got along without it, though; it sure does help keep things orderly. --Pi zero (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I would not be surprised. I remember another Wikinewsie "passing" an article without making use of that template. But we have good memories of what happens with or without that template. (Was the same day I found out there is a country called Curacao)
•–• 14:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am quite sure the template is optional. I know it is helpful in avoiding edit-conflicts, but I didn't use it because I didn't know if I had time for a full review or just some minor tidy work. The article was idle for nearly 5 hours. But as soon as I went to use the review tool, a bunch of my changes got reverted. Therefore, revision 4373650 was reviewed, but that is not the current revision, so I could not publish. --SVTCobra 14:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it came from project guidelines or essays [frankly that is annoying] but the stages of an article are: {{develop}}ing, {{under review}}, and {{publish}}ed.
•–• 15:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Actually, under-review is an extra, in addition to being on the review queue. I can understand SVTCobra's choice not to use it under the circumstances, though of course not using it does mean there's some chance of... well, some chance of exactly what happened.

I have in mind that when we build an assistant to replace the current review gadget, it would add {{under review}} when the reviewer starts to set up the review template, if there weren't already such a tag on the article. --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Tell me, is "under review" not one of the stages of a [successful] news article?
•–• 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Articles have to be reviewed, of course, but the tag is optional and thereby the "stage". You can also say that {{prepared story}} is a stage in article development, but it too is optional. --SVTCobra 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Here is the thing: it is totally okay if an article is not a prepared story. But without review, no article can be published.
•–• 15:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
True. But there's no requirement that "Under review" needs to be affixed to the article while the review takes place, as long as the article is actually reviewed. {{develop}} is not even a requirement. Somebody could write the entire article in one edit (if they want to risk losing their work) and go straight to the {{review}} stage. That is the only required stage because it has to be performed by a different person. --SVTCobra 15:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I have written articles in one edit. Until and unless I am 100% sure the article is ready for review, I do not remove {{develop}} tag. The content is not on the server-side, but the article is under development. It may never appear it used {{develop}}, but it is not possible for an article not to be developing at a certain stage. How about we stop justifying why that template is important, and actually use it to avoid problems just like what you just witnessed?
•–• 15:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's how you do it, but you could have put "review" if you were truly confident in your work and carefully examined the preview. There's no right or wrong way. People can develop articles in their sandbox, if they wish. --SVTCobra 15:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Still it is "developing". It is a formal stage. Just like an article needs a formal review to be published.
•–• 15:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. This is getting completely pointless. --SVTCobra 15:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Okay. If you still can't see a point here, maybe you did not get anything that I was trying to tell you.
•–• 16:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
The point was you accused me of a policy violation, which I think I have demonstrated, it is not. I am fully aware, some edit-conflicts may have been avoided if I had used the "under review" template. But only maybe, it wouldn't actually have stopped you from reverting some of my changes; I can only hope you'd respect the tag, but there wouldn't be any guarantee. Is there some other point you are trying to make?--SVTCobra 17:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Since we are all on the same team, and I really think there is no great animosity on any side of this, perhaps we should simply let the matter drop, having exchanged our various thoughts on the matter. --Pi zero (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I wouldn’t call it reverting. I actually thought you were copyediting. In that case, you have changed the punctuation mark, placed it in the quotation mark. Would it have stopped me? As a reviewer, I had experienced what happens when someone edits while we are reviewing the article. That was one of the first things I got to know when I joined the project.
117.248.121.206 (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Great to see you around

Have I remarked on how grateful I am for help with reviewing? I try my best when it's just me, but a bit of help from a couple of other reviewers (as has been the case in recent days) makes a terrific difference. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you have, but thanks. I am glad to do it when I have some down-time. And thank you for all the work you have done over the years. Do you have time to review Mysterious dimming of Tabby's star likely due to space dust, not alien superstructures, say scientists? It seems to be our biggest and most time piece on the docket. If yes, I'll do some work on England: Multi-storey carpark in Liverpool gutted by fire, 1,300 vehicles destroyed. BTW, I added a couple of things to WN:DR. They are borderline speedy, so if you believe they indeed are speedy items, feel free to wipe them. Cheers and happy editing, --SVTCobra 17:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have had in mind to tackle the astronomy article today. I've a bit to do irl, and then hopefully I can get to it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I hope the stupid drama isn't preventing you from reviewing Mysterious dimming of Tabby's star likely due to space dust, not alien superstructures, say scientists. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

self sight

Stop self sighting your edits. You can not sight the edit adding photos. That is clearly a policy breach.
•–• 09:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Would you please start citing the policies I am breaching! Show me this policy! You didn't seem to mind when I was auto-sighting and populating your new Australian Open category. I am sick and tired of this non-specific "you are breaching policy" accusation without saying what policy is being breached. You are wasting my time and, frankly, turning me off from this project. --SVTCobra 09:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
From Wikinews:Reviewing articles (official policy on the English Wikinews)

"any Reviewer who performs an edit that would not have been permissable to an article that had been archived under WN:ARCHIVE must not sight that revision, and await sighting from another Reviewer."
•–• 09:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Wonderful, and if you dig into this double-convoluted policy it does say in the archive policy that "adding images is content" (WN:ARCHIVE), but you have to go two layers deep in policy; and I don't think it was intended for articles that were published only 3 hours earlier. So, tell me: Why did you remove the image instead of un-sighting and re-sighting?
If your goal is to have me not ever review an article that you started, believe me, you have succeeded! Do you hate me so much because I changed "Aus" to "Australian"? If so, that is both pathetic and petty. --SVTCobra 10:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
A) I cannot unsight And resight a revision which isn’t the current revision. B) it is pathetic and petty for you to think I hate you for changing a word in the headline. I don’t hate you for that. I just voiced my thoughts. And seems to me that you didn’t like the way I told you. We don’t have AGF policy, and I can criticise you for your edits if they are good for the project. Point me the comments which were destructive for the project.
•–• 10:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
you spent time for the various layers, but on the top it is clearly mentioned “Any revisions to an article that would breach WN:ARCHIVE had that article been archived must be sighted by another user” — file change 24 hours after publishing the article is not permitted, let alone the case of archived article.
•–• 11:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Look, it's layers because the one policy lazily refers to another policy. You cannot see the part about images being content without going into WN:Archive. --SVTCobra 11:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
A) It's not that hard. Just unsight the revision and all the subsequent, then resight them. You are doing the same by removing the image and sighting that edit when the image was added many revisions ago. There's no difference. B) Well, your thoughts are not appreciated. I know there's not an AGF policy. Here we call it Never Assume. In it, it says to be skeptical. I have become very skeptical of you. I question your motives. I question why you have wasted hours upon hours of my time on nonsensical bullshit. I think the majority of Wikinews will say that my edits are good for the project. I cannot say the same for you. Wasting my time, wasting Pi zero's time is destructive for the project! What about that don't you get??? --SVTCobra 11:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Wasting your time? You are not compelled to reply. And it is destructive for the project? Where were you for the last two and half years ago? I haven’t said your edits were destructive, but you do not acknowledge my edits were not destructive. You have been away for Wikinews for long enough that you fail to see how irrational things have been, and your comments too. Luckily Pi zero was there to help me. It would have been better if you understood a revert or a comment was not against your on-wiki reputation, but a precaution, when I told you what to do certain things.
•–• 11:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
You are right, I am not compelled to answer; and I shan't do it again after this. It is none of your business where I have been IRL. Surely, I played into the wasting of time by replying to you, but I did not know how out-of-control it would get when it began. My so-called "on-wiki" reputation speaks for itself; frankly, I don't care about it; it does not define me. In my opinion, your objections to what I have done are unfounded and you are digging around in policy to try to prove otherwise. I am guessing, if Pi zero made the same edits as I did, you would not object.
What makes you think you have the authority to tell me "to do certain things"? Your sense of self-entitlement is astonishing. Please spare me your "precautions". I will do my utmost to not interact with you in the future, lest you start reverting things out of shear vanity again. The good news is you can rest assured, you are by no means the most cancerous person to have landed at Wikinews. Bye, --SVTCobra 12:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Snow

Just fyi. I'm very frustrated that I haven't gotten to the astronomy article yet (except for looking briefly at at as I was about to turn in last night, when I was very far from being able to review), but still hope to get to it today... but just atm I need to clear somewhere likely between one and two metric tons of snow from our driveway. Hopefully that will only take three hours or so.

(I'm admittedly very upset that you and acagastya are not getting along at all well. And things seem to be getting worse hour by hour, despite or in some cases perhaps because of my efforts to be helpful to all. It's quite depressing, given that my future hopes for Wikinews seemingly require being able to have lots of reviewers here all at the same time and have them all pulling in the same direction.)

Btw, as a matter of possible side interest, the "assume good intentions" page ultimately didn't work out well, causing considerable problems, and evolved to Wikinews:Never assume. Which I think is what we always really meant, anyway. (I recall remarking to brianmc, after the overhaul, that it all got immensely shorter because a lot of the words in "assume good intentions" were trying to pull back from having ever said to assume anything in the first place; as I recall, he chuckled.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Do not blame yourself. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
(Better ballpark estimate, six to ten tons.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

England: Multi-storey carpark in Liverpool gutted by fire, 1,300 vehicles destroyed

Just wondering; it was pointed out (in a rather nasty tone, but I think someone may have been genuinely hurt to be called... a name which I hesitate to repeat, which I eventually had to look up as I'd never seen it before) that the focal event on this article was on Sunday, and we published on Thursday. Your thoughts regarding freshness on this one? (The WN:Freshness link, btw, is an essay on newsworthiness that BRS, and to some extent I, wrote after some years of deliberating and occasional community discussions.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page of the article, you will see that I commented to Gryllida that it was not super-timely. And it, in fact, only just meets Wikinews criteria for timeliness. Let me quote from WN:Content guide, which is official policy: "If the event was in the last seven days but new information came to light in the last 2–3 days then the article is still acceptable."
Similarly, the essay that you cited states: "If the event was in the last seven days but new information came to light in the last 2–3 days then the article is still acceptable. In most cases however the new information will be suitable to refocus on, with a headline and lede identifying the new information as the event is being reported on."
So, the event occurred in the last seven days and latest source used was from January 2. I published on January 5, three days after. So it is certainly borderline, but it ticks all the boxes. In this case, it did not seem to make sense an refocus the story on the statements of the mayor or the other information used from the most recent source. Since writers are getting increasingly frustrated that they can't get their articles reviewed in a timely matter, I thought I would definitely err on the side of publishing, especially given how much effort had been put into it with custom maps and all. It would be a shame to see it all get flushed down the tube for being a hair stale.
The user who raised the issue is grasping at straws in their vendetta against me. The user feels ownership over articles and that their choices must be respected. I think it began with changing "Aus" to "Australian" in the title, which was done according to official policy (see WN:Naming conventions), and the moving of a period, which I believe I did grammatically correct, but it such a minor thing I didn't care about that. The user refused to concede that I was in my right to change it and began an unrelenting campaign of harassment starting various discussions on no fewer than four talk pages. I believe this was done in violation of WN:POINT, if not by the letter of that policy, then certainly the spirit.
This questioning of the timeliness of the car park article is, in my opinion, just an example of lashing out like a petulant child (or that word I used before).
Speaking of timeliness, I hope the astronomy article doesn't fall victim to that. Some people put an awful lot of effort into it. The sources are from January 3. If it does, we know who we can blame for wasting our time. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm eyeing the clock nervously, about the astronomy article. My own morale has been admittedly quite low the past day and more, over this awful falling out between you and acagastya, and that has not at all helped with my getting myself psyched into review mode; but I really must do so, no later than right after lunch today.

I've earnestly tried but had not managed to catch every point that has been discussed. We're in agreement that it's marginal in freshness; I quite accept your judgement that there was something-or-other in the most recent source that had come to light on the day of the latest source; usually of course one wants to have some explicit mention in the article of the most-recent date that is supporting freshness (a point I've tended to emphasize because sooner-or-later someone wants to submit something a week later based on the publication date of some tardily published source that really didn't offer anything new). I do think acagastya is genuinely concerned for the project; xe learned reviewing from me, and I am known to be, amongst other things, a perfectionist, and while I have much experience on the project working alongside other reviewers with different styles than my own, acagastya has rarely worked alongside any other reviewer than me. --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it again, the publishing occurred on January 4, not 5, a few hours before it UTC time clicked over to the fifth, so then it is even less marginal and all the sources were within 3 days.
PS Do we really protect redirects that are from before publishing? We used to delete them and only keep and protect redirects in the more rare case of an article being renamed after publishing so that links on outside aggregators or mirrors don't break. --SVTCobra 17:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
A bit of middling-recent history on redirects (though as I write it all out, there turns out to be rather more to it than I'd realized).

Some... discussion arose, a while back, between brianmc and Amgine about when a redirect from renaming an article can be speedily deleted, as a result of which BRS and I (don't recall who else may have been involved) thrashed out a speedy-deletion clause to clarify. My somewhat-understanding of Amgine's concern was that deleting a redirect is relatively expensive in server load because of some point about how the wiki platform is designed. The rule we've been operating on since then is that a redirect from renaming an article can be (but doesn't have to be) speedily deleted if the rename was done prior to publication and publication has since taken place and the publication took place no earlier than the beginning of 2009 (because BRS figured the current review/publication pattern wasn't as stable earlier than that). I observe that folks don't always bother about whether the article has been published yet. Acagastya usually prefers to ask an admin to move the unpublished article without leaving a redirect. Amgine's concern, if I understood it, still applies, though, so I usually don't delete pre-publish redirects even after publication, though I keep in mind that they can be deleted at whim. However, redirects in mainspace are actually a mild security liability (not a crisis, but best eliminated in the long run), so I've started dealing with them, one at a time, with always in mind that eventually, once semi-automated assistants become easy to come by, the dealing-with may speed up quite a lot. Once the target article is published, I fully protect each redirect, and check carefully to see whether the creating rename was before or after publication; if before, I categorize it in both Category:Protected mainspace redirects and Category:Discretionary mainspace redirects; if after, then just Category:Protected mainspace redirects and I might add an explanation in the edit summary. When I started working on that, I counted the mainspace redirects; at the time we had about 21 thousand articles in mainspace, and I was rather disconcerted to find there were about 18 thousand redirects in mainspace, rather more than I'd guessed. I've been working both backward from the present and forward from the start of the project (I also have a Category:Non-news mainspace redirects, btw); except for really recent stuff whose status hasn't been resolved yet, I've worked back to late 2010 (almost as far back as I've gotten with my other vast curation project, converting old articles to use {{w}}), and forward to mid-2005. --Pi zero (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that is a lot. But is it really of any importance to switch old links to use {{w}}? The old links work fine. But both that curation project and the redirect project seem like candidates for being handled with a bot. Or perhaps you find the grind of doing it manually therapeutic? Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. It's a subtle and powerful template, really; I confess to a certain pride in having devised it. On the surface, it appears to be "just" a device that checks for a local target, links to that if found, and if not found, links instead to wikipedia. With a few refinements for less common situations. But the effect of having vast numbers of archived articles using that device is, that when we do create a new local category, populate it, and then create a local mainspace redirect to it, all the articles that look for that label instantly shift to use the local link, and they flag themselves out so we can, at our leisure, go through and find them, consider whether to categorize them (in case we missed them when populating the category initially) and convert them to hard local links thus decategorizing them. Also, there's a gadget that underlines local links via {{w}} in green, which makes it much easier to categorize a new article by looking to see which links in the article are local. It's dramatically changed our attitude toward creating new categories, which used to be a more painful task that we tried to minimize whereas we're now considerably more aggressive about it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Btw, regarding use of a bot: I'm not a believer in bots. They're not flexible. I want human judgement involved in the decisions, because there are lots of details of these operations that are better handled by human judgement. I do want semi-automation, to reduce the tedium without reducing the richness of human input; but I reckon it's also needful to have a human operator who is intimately familiar with an operation in order to design semi-automation for it, so that's another reason to have a human continuously doing some of it (without worrying about the fact that the task is huge and going very slowly atm). --Pi zero (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Trump 2016 TIME POTY.jpg

I'm a bit puzzled, on this. You tagged it as needing a fair-use rationale. Such things certainly want to be well taken care of. I feel, honestly, I'm missing something about the situation. The page and creation edit-summary state the purpose of the image; I make no claim either way about the adequacy thereof, but once one knows the purpose it seems likely that anything more wanted would be pro forma — and that leads in turn to my sense that I'm missing something about the situation. What more is it you deem needed? --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you did something more on this while I was writing the above. I admit I'm still not altogether following. --Pi zero (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I plan on filling in a more complete fair use rationale. I have gained a decent amount of experience with this over on Wikipedia. Copyright is one of the things that we can get busted for quite hard. It is better do it proper. The image was also of far too high resolution. It needs not be any bigger than the size it appears in thumb, tbh. --SVTCobra 14:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I am not looking to have the image removed or otherwise breaking an archived article, if that is your concern. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Cool. (Yes, I know copyright is a big thing. I put a lot of time and effort into copyright/plagiary issues in article text, which is of course also a very big thing for a news site, but consider myself of pretty limited knowledge on image copyright.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I further reduced the size of the image we have locally. 240 x 320 (with some slight variation because not all magazines are 2:3 ratio) is the size Wikipedia uses for covers of newspapers and magazines. (I have recently created articles for local newspapers on Wikipedia). I do not know how they concluded that is the maximum size for fair use without infringing on copyright, but I am sure they had years and many discussions about it. I feel comfortable if we adhere to the same. We may also want to consider creating {{Cover}} because {{Screenshot}} isn't really the same thing. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

{{Non-free use rationale}}

I've tried to add a nocat parameter to this. --Pi zero (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. But we do want it to add those categories if it lacks the information when on an image file, don't we? For example, if a backlink doesn't exist, then the image should be flagged in some way. --SVTCobra 16:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I think that is more important than the ability to show the template in full on Wikinews:Image copyright tags --SVTCobra 16:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I was concerned about whether I'd done it right; from your remark I deduced that I hadn't. Hopefully fixed now. --Pi zero (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I wasn't sure it was possible (because I am darn near code-blind), that's why I emphasized the functionality of the template. I tested by breaking some parameters and looking at a preview of a file page, and indeed it does what it used to do without doing it to Wikinews:Image copyright tags. Many thanks, indeed. --SVTCobra 20:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

"Miketoral"

Does that username seem to you likely to be accidentally so close to "mikemoral"? We did have one or two cases modernly of user names deliberately close to "pi zero". --Pi zero (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hadn't thought about it. Is there any policy anywhere on Wikimedia projects about spoofing usernames to gain an air of authority? So far, the edits don't seem to be out-of-line with a first-time contributor.
Related topic: Earlier, I cleared the back-log of unblock requests. Why does you-know-who have at least three usernames, not to mention all the editing from various IP addresses? Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The relevant policy would be WN:U. Common sense also applies, of course. I'm actually a bit surprised the wiki software allowed them to register a user name that differs in only one internal letter from a nine-character existing one; I thought I remembered having some trouble, in the long ago, when I was registering an account (under my real name) and wasn't allowed several variations because they weren't different enough from existing accounts. The issues seem to me to be  (a) are the two so close to each other that we ought to be disallowing it due to possible confusion regardless of intent, and  (b) is there evidence of intent to deceive? --Pi zero (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not see any attempts to act as if the user is Mikemoral. With 2.8 million users registered, some of them are bound to be near the same. It also seems that Meta has allowed the username Miketoral., so it's available globally including Wikipedia where Mikemoral is an even bigger presence. I strongly suggest leaving it to Meta unless there's some bad behavior. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: It seems we have a real life BRS spoofer. I'm gonna let it go for a few minutes for my own amusement. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I take it you were sufficiently amused at just about the same moment I was. :p --Pi zero (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes!   --SVTCobra 21:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Image search

I've heard folks mention google's image search, but, how does one invoke it?

(Spurious thought: it's long seemed a shame to me that when Basil Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes, Hollywood was in a we-know-better-than-the-written-author phase; because, on physical appearance, after reading the first description of Holmes in A Study in Scarlet imho one could pick Rathbone out of a line-up.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I am sure there's a direct url to it, but I just do a random googles search for anything, like the letter A. Then I click on the "Images" tab to filter the results, and then a little camera icon appears in the search entry box. Click that camera and it will ask for the url of an image or you can enter a locally stored image. I told you, I'm not a technocrat, but I get by. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Phone number headline spam

Not a bit deal by any means, but lately when we have one of these spammers who put phone numbers in the names of pages, obviously to make the numbers visible even if one doesn't click on the link, after deleting we've hidden the page names so those phone numbers aren't even visible on RC or the deletion log. I think Amgine mentioned having submitted a request (on "phabricator", or whatever the gratuitous replacement for bugzilla is called) to modify the special:nuke interface to make it easy to hide the names at the same time; meanwhile, we've been doing it "by hand" by going into the deletion log. --Pi zero (talk)

Ah, I wondered why you changed the visibility on pages I deleted. I woke up in the middle of the night and refreshed RC. I could see by the titles they were spam, I didn't even open any of them to see what the "amazing" content could be. I mass deleted and blocked. Next time, I will open one or two first. Wait! What? In the titles? I am pretty sure there were no phone numbers in the titles. It was like printer model numbers, like "Epson 240 C" or something. Well, I guess I can look again at the logs. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I see now. a "1-800" number was the common denominator in all the titles. Well, as I said, I woke up in the middle of the night, did the block/delete and went back to sleep. Sorry, I'll do better next time.--SVTCobra 14:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 :-) --Pi zero (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

TheRumbler

Why do you keep repeating the same bloody thing for? TheRumbler (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do you keep creating encyclopedia articles? They do not belong here. --SVTCobra 15:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Why on earth are you writing about yourself, then? This is not an encyclopedia! TheRumbler (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Shall we be best mates? TheRumbler (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a bit soon to be besties, but if you stop what you are doing, I won't block you. --SVTCobra 15:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Fine, you've got my word. But could you at least revert my page back, please? TheRumbler (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, because it was a copy of Jason Trafford Mark Smith on Appropedia. If that is you, you are free to write about yourself, but don't format it like an encyclopedia article. --SVTCobra 15:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if my block of TheRumbler clashed with your intent, SVTCobra. With the page "Sock puppetry" and the apparently-informed disruption I didn't see how we would be ahead by leaving them loose on the project. --Pi zero (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I was going to give TheRumbler a 24 hour time-out if there was one more disruptive edit. I guess I am just a big old softie. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Dialog tools

You were saying something about our low output (something like, 'two articles on a good day'). It occurs to me I'm not sure if I've mentioned in your presence my "master plan". There's the view of the forest, and the view of the trees. The trees (or at least the underbrush as seen from their midst) would be Help:Dialog. The best pre-existing aerial view of the forest atm is User:Pi zero/essays/vision/sisters, though that's about the entire wikimedia sisterhood rather than specific to Wikinews (so it's missing stuff about specifically which tasks need attention here, in what order, and how to tackle them). --Pi zero (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Review...

Just wondering: If I were thinking of maybe writing the odd synthesis article, might it be possible you'd be able to review it, and when would be convenient for you? (Day of week? Time of day? Or the like?) --Pi zero (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, of course, but I hesitate to commit to any particular day or time. My schedule is currently very open, not in that I don't have IRL things to do, but that there's nothing planned. I come here when I have free time or more accurately, when I need to relax/distract myself. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Cool. I didn't mean to suggest a commitment; at most, I'd figured on at most something statistical, if you wished to nudge me toward something more likely to work out okay. (I avoid promising to review, just as I avoid apologizing (as such) for not getting to a review, because it has seemed important not to obscure reviewers' volunteer status. I've speculated on innovative approaches to the logistical problem of matching up reviewer availability with article submission, but it's always seemed clear to me that technical inefficiencies needed to be fixed first.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I believe we are in the same time-zone. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I've been waiting for your synthesis article, but it hasn't come up yet. BTW, I have one that's been up for review for 24 hours. (and another much newer). Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, when I asked you about that, we were in the midst of a very slow spell on the review queue.

I noticed the first of your two current articles while you were still writing it. I've just had a frustrating day that's been one thing after another, and review hasn't happened even though I've had my eye on it the whole while. The chances are fading (though not quite gone yet) that I'll get myself into review mode before I lose my concentration entirely this evening. --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I know. ... It's easier to blow the "Truth about Immigration Lottery" out of the water four times than a serious review. --SVTCobra 02:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Come on! There was no slower 24-hour period than Wednesday/Thursday on Wikinews. I swear there wasn't even spam for hours. Not blaming you and you don't have to explain anything, but don't deflect. --SVTCobra 02:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In response to your remarks, I did what I tend to do when conversing on a reasonably cordial basis, offering some information of possible use. I don't understand deflect in this context. I was going to offer a comment or two regarding the immigration-lottery author, too (which I thought of passing interest re recruiting and reviewing); but, never mind. --Pi zero (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, with "deflect" I was trying to be polite. But it's ok if you say you took a day off if because you were tired of svt and agoya bullshit. I sure as hell would be if I were you. --SVTCobra 03:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
That's considerate of you (seriously; it is); but, I suggested I'd had a hectic day because I did have a hectic day. I didn't take a day off. You're quite right (though I'm not sure whether you meant it seriously, or not) that several decisive not-ready reviews of a newbie's article are easier to do than one full review of a veteran's, because smaller efforts, and smaller blocks of time, are easier to provide (and I reckon there's some insight there into making review easier). --Pi zero (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2018‎ IUTC_
Got one of your articles out the door (even though it was about a day later than I'd hoped). --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Got the other. Two full reviews in a day is usually my max output (requires veteran reportage, since newcomers' articles generally take lots longer); almost always means one in the morning, a second in the afternoon. And of course I mostly lost the ability to do evening reviews shortly after the 2012 elections. --Pi zero (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --SVTCobra 01:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Do me a favour…

Stop pinging me. I don’t expect emails mentioning “Wikinews” in my inbox, and since you are dealing with the eps, (which you don’t understand fully because things happened during the inactivity [of course not before when you joined the project, I assume it was '06] I get a lot of emails — and pinging me makes me feel I have pending work on the project.
•–• 20:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

So maybe your signature shouldn't have had PING ME! large bold letters. And you can do me a favor and stop editing from IP addresses, expecting to be taken seriously. And if I don't try to clear the backlog of {{editprotected}} who will? --SVTCobra 20:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Also you need to sight the eps after you make changes; the basic shit. FWIW, this project can be edited by anyone, and there is no discrimination against anonymous editors…as there also have been a case when anon's OR was published. Not everyone is like you — there are others who do not discriminate against anonymous editors.
•–• 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am not sighting is because you made a big stink about self-sighting. --SVTCobra 20:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
it was discussed and if I recall correctly, initial eps that you addressed were sighted after pizero told you it was okay to self-sight for categories…
223.237.221.194 (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Pi zero notes that IPs cannot have equal status to registered users since there is no way to contact people who aren't logged in: messages to an IP's user-talk page aren't necessarily directed specifically to any particular person who used the IP, and a person who used one IP on one occasion might not be on the same IP in future. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Especially when it's dynamic IP addresses that change all the time.... --SVTCobra 22:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@223.237.221.194 ... I have been using HotCat to add categories, so those get auto-sighted ... it's all the others. --SVTCobra 11:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
<pi zero raises an eyebrow> Really? I thought we'd shut off all auto-sighting (with resounding consensus) years ago... --Pi zero (talk) 13:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/SVTCobra all the edits in yellow background are yet to be sighted.
•–• 13:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there aren't any atm. I sighted a bunch of them last night before the review I did, cutting down on clutter at the Category:Review page. --Pi zero (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. I did a test and I don't think HotCats is auto-sighting. It was probably just a coincidence because some other articles pre-date Flagged Revisions or something. I just know that not all of the changes I made needed review. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah! Yes, many old articles are unsighted. I don't recall we've ever settled on a standard practice for when to sight them. Since the creation of {{w}} in January 2011 (use of which became de rigueur just about overnight once introduced, as I recall), I've been working backward through our archives by date, making sure each article is converted to use {{w}}. I'm still in mid-2010 (though I expect the process will speed up once I get some semi-automation on-line for it), but once that process gets to before systematic use of flaggedrevs, I suppose one might wish to use that conversion as a criterion for sighting. --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hence my hiding of content

We've got a particular vandal who posts that stuff, almost always from a different url but by their spam shall ye know them. At some point I started systematically hiding the revisions where they put those little vignettes, so if they wanted to recreate them they'd have to enter them fresh rather than merely revert. Thus. --Pi zero (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was a recurring problem. Didn't look at the history. --SVTCobra 01:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't occur in the same place, over time. Even the anecdotes have gradually morphed over time; but only gradually. --Pi zero (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been trying to remember when it started. Recalling the months involved with some one-year IP blocks, it seems like it has been going on for more than a year. --Pi zero (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
The article by an IP that I deleted about an hour ago was another in this series. It wasn't offensive (as most of the posts in the series have been), but I now suspect there may be privacy concerns as well. --Pi zero (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I did consider whether it was part of the same nonsense as the 6242007 articles. But this seemed different than the stories about boys and pee. It was about a very real place, the Pathways Academy which is affiliated with McLean Hospital [1]. My impression was it was a first-hand account of a bad experience told in the third person, or by a friend. I did make note that the named person was over 18, but did not otherwise consider privacy issues. You were probably right to delete it. There was no way this was ever going to be newsworthy. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The central actor's name was the same as in most of the early posts in the series. (And yes, I recognized McLean Hospital.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
OK. I don't know the full history. Just what I have seen in 2018. --SVTCobra 22:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

WN:Archives

Btw, at BRS's suggestion a while back, I've been working on a major upgrade of our archives splash page. You can see my developing effort at User:Pi zero/Archives. Adjustments for passage of time are handled automatically there (though I had several difficulties with the on-this-day feature). --Pi zero (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, cool. Looks a bit too technical for me  . --SVTCobra 14:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Politics of Zimbabwe

Hi, I see you've removed this cat from today's new article - don't you believe it has some added value after all to create it? See Wikidata: d:Q6944520 - there are already four other language versions of Wikinews (German, Dutch, Serbian and Esperanto) with this same category. And, of course, all Wikipedia language versions have it. De Wikischim (talk) 12:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All I was saying by removing it, was it does not exist. Personally, I am against category proliferation, but if you created the category and demonstrate that at least three articles belong in it, there's no policy that says it shouldn't exist. I just don't like red-linked categories on articles. At present, we only have four "Category:Politics of nnnn" on Wikinews. If we created one for every nation, it would be a tremendous project of going through the archives and populating them all; and only sysops can do it. I think it is overkill. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, actually it's not that difficult since even Robert Mugabe has a whole cat of his own here, which simply can become a "subcat" of Category:Politics of Zimbabwe, just newly created. I also wonder why "politics and conflicts" must be merged into one single cat? In my opinion, that's not logic at all. These two topics only have sometimes to do with each other. De Wikischim (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
It seems I cannot move most of the articles in Category:Zimbabwe myself to the new cat, because they have been "frozen". Anyway each article in Category:Zimbabwe with "politics" in the title must be moved now to Category:Politics of Zimbabwe. In addition, every article which is "loose" now in Category:Zimbabwe rather belongs in the specific cat about Mugabe. With that, they are automatically in the broader cat "Zimbabwe". --De Wikischim (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say it was difficult to create, but there may be a bunch of other articles to add. If you put on the category talk page {{Fill this category}} and list all the articles that belong in it, eventually it will probably be sorted out. There are probably some not in the Mugabe category. What I am saying is, I am philosophically opposed to it. Others here, are not. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
OK I've placed the template now, but since there are rather many pages to add, I'll list them later. By the way, I just gave some clues hereabove; at least every article with politics" in the title simply belongs in the new subcat. De Wikischim (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw you removed Zimbabwe as a category. I will have to check with @Pi zero: what current attitudes are towards nesting categories. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
In my opinion, Category:Zimbabwe has become superfluous with the addition of this new cat. However, if you prefer to keep that main cat "Zimbabwe" too in the article, you can just put it back. De Wikischim (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
In nearly all situations, we avoid creating intersection categories like this. They are unnecessary and burdensome and nearly guaranteed to proliferate inconsitencies in our category hierarchy. Although modernly we have encouraged creation of categories of particular sorts whose maintenance is facilitated by {{w}}, when it comes to this sort of intersection category, consensus here is still in keeping with SVTCobra's position. --Pi zero (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's completely up to you if you prefer not to keep such categories. However, I just believe they are useful. De Wikischim (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

US government shutdown

I think the topic as such surely does deserve an article of its own. I see you've just removed your own version. Anyway, are you still planning to write a new (updated, I suppose) one? De Wikischim (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I'll have time. But the one I deleted was about efforts to avoid the shutdown. And they failed, so it was moot. --SVTCobra 17:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

File:2011 Fixture.pdf

Thinking about this.

Historically, I have shied away from deleting files that are in-use as sources; which this was, as one couldn't tell from the "image in use" list (because the image wasn't displayed on any page on the wiki) but could tell from Special:WhatLinksHere (link); cited as sourcing for an article in 2010. Sometimes when people provide images as sourcing they display the image on the article talk page, sometimes they don't. It seems an interesting thought experiment to ask, if the reporter had chosen to display the image on the talk page rather than merely linking to it, would it be somehow more allowable as fair use? --Pi zero (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...I assumed it was no longer needed and that the purpose was verification as stated on the file page. Since the article was reviewed for verifiability, I believed it to have served its purpose. I’m not against restoring it but I struggled to add a non-free rationale (no source, not used on an article, purpose was already achieved etc). Green Giant (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
If so, we need a tag for it (as well as the other requisite copyright/license information). I know this was long ago, but was it after Rockerball's imaginary stage? I remember loads of fantasy about making movies and inventing new sports. Quite elaborate, too. --SVTCobra 01:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Green Giant's point about sourcing seems reasonably valid, though it does suggest the notion that somehow such an image would be allowable as fair-use for a while and then its FU eligibility either expires or at least decays, which seems a strange happenstance. I'm willing, tentatively, to accept that such images simply aren't allowable on the wiki (and presumably therefore ought to be sent to scoop instead; that sort of thing is part of what scoop is for, after all). --Pi zero (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I can’t comment on what might have been acceptable WN practice in the past but certainly now I would expect a URL where it could be verified. To be fair I can remember a time when Wikipedia articles could get away with bare URLS and sometimes quite extensive chunks of unattributed text. We still have a bunch of Commons files (pre-2006 I think), where the email from the author giving permission was copy&pasted by the uploader to the file page and it was taken on trust that it was genuine! As I say, I’m not opposed to keeping such images if it is felt they are needed but as SVTCobra suggests, they would need a bespoke tag to ensure nosy people like me steer clear. :) Green Giant (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Our extreme requirements for sourcing allow, nonetheless, for the sourcing to be sometimes not publicly shareable (hence the scoop mailing list, for non-public sourcing); and it's not uncommon for old articles to have source links that no longer work (which we can, in principle, provide archival links for if there happens to be an archived copy of the source article at, say, the Internet Archive; but sometimes it's just lost). For both cases, the operative principle is that the reader knows it was rigorously checked by a reviewer before they cleared it for publication. --Pi zero (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Are you talking about OTSR stuff? Because I am pretty sure there are ways to tag them without revealing the source. --SVTCobra 02:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
We wouldn't use OTSR. OTSR can't be independent of the WMF and isn't limited to Wikinews-community-trusted personnel, so it's of no use to us. --Pi zero (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
As an OTRS volunteer, I can confirm that WMF staff, stewards, ombudspeople and various ArbCom members do have access but in my experience the WMF staff only get involved with DMCA takedown requests. The vast majority of the tickets (email chains) are separated into queues, to which access has to be requested from an OTRS admin. For example there are several English Wikipedia and Commons queues to which I have access but I can't view tickets in many other queues. I’m not privy to the scoop list so I don’t know how many emails are received but for what it’s worth I think it would be worth trying to get a dedicated WN OTRS queue set up. You can request it to only be accessible to WN admins (or trusted users —> hint: including me?! <—) but it would require digitally signing a confidentiality agreement, although as far as I know you don’t have to provide identification to the WMF. You do however have to give your real name to the OTRS admin but you can use a pseudonym that sounds like a real name when answering emails - for the record I use a pseudonym on OTRS because I value my anonymity. The plus side is that it would have a dedicated Wikimedia email address and there is already an existing feature of the software that allows simple linking to specific email chains e.g. ticket:2017071610010825 (which links to a dummy ticket you can only see if you are able to log in). The only negative is that the OTRS system and the associated wiki each require a separate login i.e. they are not linked to your unified account. Green Giant (talk) 12:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Last I heard OTRS had a place in it for someone to field questions about Wikinews. I might have been more precise: OTRS is not useful for the purposes we use scoop for. Independent is independent. --Pi zero (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there is a queue for WN questions (number 108), similar to ones for each of the sister projects, but I have no idea who has access to 108. Hmm... about the "independent" bit - I suppose it depends on how you view the WMF. I'm not their greatest fan (I could make a list of their failings) but I don't think they are that bad that I wouldn't trust them to not interfere in an OTRS queue. Couldn't we have both systems running i.e. someone could contact a reporter at Wikinewsie or send an email to scoop at wikinews dot org, with the latter staffed by WN admins? How active is Wikinewsie.org by the way, because I can see an update from August 2016 but nothing newer? I'm guessing there is more internal stuff than external? Green Giant (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

File:MainPageSpacingProblem.jpg

Hello. Regarding this edit, I just wanted to highlight that the CC-BY-2.5 is correct for the text but the problem I had is reconciling the photo of the Pakistani PM (c:File:Gilani.jpg) from this article. It was deleted on Commons because of copyright concerns, namely a Wikipedian claiming it as own work, when it may have been a crop from an AP photo. I’m not sure that we can retain it because it isn't de minimis, indeed it is quite prominent as one of the two main features in the screenshot. By contrast, the other photo, File:Loy Yang A and B power station.jpg, is fine because it is CC-BY-SA-3.0. Your thoughts? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the human eye may be drawn to a face more than anything, but it takes up 1/40th (roughly fits 8 times horizontally, 5 times vertically) of an already low resolution screenshot. So, I would argue, the focus is not on that image. Even the headline is bigger. That being said, I do not think it is terribly important to keep this screenshot, as opposed to the other one which is used in a discussion archive. If AP were to assert infringement, they'd be laughed out of court. You did an extraordinary amount of detective work here. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Africa faces food crisis, UN Security Council told

I was wondering whether it would be better to move it to the opinions page rather than delete it. It probably doesn't matter that much though. —mikemoral (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Double 2500+ character comments on a 2005 article seemed like garbage. It did not seem like an accident, but rather an attempt to insert something in a place that wouldn't be noticed for a while. TBH, I didn't read the content. On the other hand, I did not issue any punishment. The user seems able to navigate a Wiki project, so ... --SVTCobra 09:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Tbh, I didn't even notice it was double-posted. It seemed like someone's opinion on a close skimming, but eh, whatever. —mikemoral (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Glancing at it again, it does also have some link-spam to a blogpost site. --SVTCobra 09:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Protecting against recreation

When a page is forever being recreated like that, I usually leave it unprotected, figuring if a vandal wants to identify themself by the page they create, let them. --Pi zero (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I figure spammers are using proxy IPs and if it can stop us from wasting time deleting the same page again and again and blocking one-use IPs it makes sense. IDK, what the best solution is. --SVTCobra 18:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I suppose each admin has their own methodology. On Commons I usually wait for a page to be recreated three times over a week before protecting it, unless it is an obvious spammer or an unsalubrious word. Even then it is usually for no more than a month. Green Giant (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
POZYCJONOWANIE has been deleted seven times now. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Quite odd

Hello. See the history of the Koreas hold joint training session for Olympics article where you just edited and it was pending review. Why does your edit need reviewing? Are you a notorious locked, blocked, banned and canned sock-puppeting troll who likes to mess with articles??? :) I've noticed this happen before but just never remembered to ask anyone. Just seems odd that an admin can't be autopatrolled. Green Giant (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, no. I haven't lost any privileges. I could have auto-sighted, but it's frowned upon for published articles. Somebody made a big stink about it before, so I let them sit for another editor with reviewer status. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. Green Giant (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Re the choice of infobox

If you see the source code of infobox, the DLP lists five articles. Now, having an infobox of two articles vs five articles — the similar thought process applies because of which we do not create categories until we have five articles about it. Though we have lowered the standards and let a category exist with just three articles. Similar thing happened for UEFA Euro 2016 — we did not add that infobox until we had enough articles to show, so that it does not appear we don’t have any articles about it. Plus, it helps us motivate to write more and more articles so we can make use of new infobox as soon as possible.
•–• 01:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That we only have 1 or 2 articles about an event that hasn't even started yet seem natural. To say that because an infobox allows up to 5 articles, doesn't seem like an argument either. Please give a reason based in policy or guidelines. We created the category before the "normal" 3 articles. Why are you so opposed? --SVTCobra 01:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
<dropping in, for a moment> Is there a need for a policy-or-guideline? It seems plausible that an infobox is more useful if it lists a larger number of relevant articles; just atm there are very few articles related to the 2018 games. --Pi zero (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
For UEFA Euro 2016, the fifth article was published just when the event had started and we were able to use the infobox. It is not about the policy, (we don’t have one against category creation with articles < 5) but how much that helps readers.
•–• 01:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
It is possible to have five articles published before event starts.
•–• 01:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
"able to use the infobox"? lol, what made you unable to do so until the fifth?. So now, after I have seen so much in the last month about 3 for a category, now that's not a rule or a guideline or even common practice? And then you dare say 5 is a requirement for an infobox? @Pi zero:, no there's not a need for a policy or guideline, imho, but how is even the USA Gymnasticts sex scandal relevant with the current Olympics infobox? And the next is stuff from 2016. --SVTCobra 01:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is possible when you go back and add old articles. Did you even try that for 2018 Winter Olympics? --SVTCobra 01:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
what made me able to use it — the sense that readers would get a threshold of articles to read about the same topic — let’s not target each other’s moral decisions to improve Wikinews, because that is not helping. As for Olympics infobox having articles from 2016 — Olympics is a broad category and that is how it goes. That is how it should go. There are some topics which don’t get articles for a longer duration and even if they do, sometimes people wouldn’t write. Old articles — go and find articles for 2018 Winter Olympics. By the way, 2018 World Cup has the category even before I came to Wikinews and has five articles.
•–• 02:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is a waste of time. So why are you wasting our time? I didn't revert your [[File:{{{filename}}}|left|||thumb|
Image: {{{author}}}. ([[:File:{{{filename}}}|Reuse terms]].)]] even if I didn't like it. --SVTCobra 02:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Because {{img}} is helping. You are not adding the reuse terms parameter for the images/videos you use, though there should be a "noo-brainer-link" to license note. And using infobox which does not contain enough articles is (quoting what pizero once told me) "making Wikinews look ugly".
•–• 02:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing screen cast: record your video?

Hello! To help identify the reviewing efficiency bottlenecks and design adequate technical solutions please consider filming a screencast of yourself reviewing 2-3 different articles at your convenience. Upload your videos and tag them with Category:Wikinews training materials review screencasts. (This page has motivations and notes on the analysis of reviewing videos.) Thank you. --Gryllida 00:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for a tool (software) that can record what is happening on my screen? I do not own a capture card or a copy of OBS. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
For what operating system? --Gryllida 01:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Windows 8. --SVTCobra 01:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps VLC media player (tutorial) or ShareX (at Windows Store), both released under a variant of GNU GPL. --Gryllida 01:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Next time I have a block of time to do a review, I will try to record it. Warning: My last review took almost 3 hours. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:34, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
OK. :-) --Gryllida 01:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

user-page spam

I see you've tried just removing the spam link from a few of these spam user pages. Perhaps on the theory some of them might be human beings? Though my own preference has been to block them sooner rather than later, figuring, once they've used the generic pattern and foisted a spam link on us, that's sufficient demonstration for a spamblock. An alternative demonstration I also figure sufficient — even with the ones that have apparently been misconfigured so they omit the spam link — is when the account replaces one generic-pattern message with another one that doesn't even resemble the first; I've seen one of those bots totally change its story, including unrelated name, unrelated location, and unrelated interests, over and over again until blocked.

The olive leaf extended doesn't seem to be working out, afaics; User:RaleighLehner03 for instance had started out saying its name was Raleigh Lehner from Sweden, you removed the spam link, and it then said its name was Kim Mendez from Tilbury, Great Britain. I think I've seen Tilbury show up in these before, btw. --Pi zero (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Yes, I know. I have noticed this pattern going back to at least February 19 (User:TanyaMcduffie62). These mini-bios are clearly fake and follow a pattern: 1) name 2) place of residence 3) hobby or study. A lot of times, there is no spam (User:LouellaMatthews), but in the cases where there is, I have never seen one of them add the offending link back to the profile. So long as that was the case, I didn't feel like increasing the amount of work by blocking and issuing a notice. Removing the link was quick, easy and there did not appear to be repeat offenses. --SVTCobra 14:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Hm. Perhaps in the back of my mind has been that blocking them creates something of a record of them. Though for that a tracking category would be more effective, and of course more work; it seems like a semi-automated assistant might alleviate the more-work aspect... --Pi zero (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
To do what? Blank the user page and add it to a particular category? --Gryllida 00:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I imagine a semi-automated assistant suggesting classes of spammers, from which the admin chooses and then the assistant keeps track of most of the finicky details of that particular class. I imagined that a lot during the recent phone-number attack, where I would look at the user's contributions to satisfy myself they were of that class, then block them, nuke their contributions, tag their user talk page, hide the page names in the deletion log, and add them to the 'list of phone number spambots' page. Which is a lot to do if one has to do it several times an hour for days on end, or a lot to remember how to do if one doesn't do it often. --Pi zero (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Pi zero: Yes, that sounds similar to my wishes for how to deal with Phone Number Spammers. See here. Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Archiving

I really discourage archiving articles that reduce the main page below ten. We want a broad sampling of our output; seeing examples of other's work being fundamental to the wiki paradigm, after all. --Pi zero (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Btw, a technical note: at Wikinews:Archive conventions#To archive, there is a line drawn, down at the bottom of the DPL, after the first ten articles. The next article to archive is (usually) the first one listed; but, for the ten-articles-on-main-page rule, one doesn't want to archive anything unless there is at least one article below the line. That's why I put that line there, to provide a convenient way of knowing whether there are enough articles on the main page to uphold archiving another. --Pi zero (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I was going by the age of the articles. Should we at least protect them before applying the {{archived}} tag? --SVTCobra 14:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, a plausible principle was suggested to me, upon a time, that whatever articles we list on the main page should be editable. Which is why, when I archive an article, I first put the {{archive}} tag on it, then refresh the main page and make sure the article has been delisted before protecting it. --Pi zero (talk)

Chemical Names

Semantically, for the future, Chlorine or Calcium are actually designated as elements and not chemicals. So they are actually proper nouns. However chemicals are made up of elements and have there own nomenclature. For example, one of the chemicals is actually labeled as SaRIN. Turns out Nazi scientist came up with that nasty stuff and used a letter from their last names to designate it. Like every English teacher I have ever had, English has rules and often brakes them. History lesson for the day! AZOperator (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to break in here, but, element names are not proper nouns. --Pi zero (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@AZOperator: Chemistry lesson of the day: All elements are chemicals. Chemical substances are elements, ions, alloys and compounds. And, as Pi zero mentioned, they are not capitalized unless at the beginning of a sentence. Your English teacher *breaks* the rules if you were taught otherwise. P.S. Sarin (which is a chemical compound and not capitalized) is named to honor the discoverers of tabun, not for those who discovered sarin. While sarin was discovered in Nazi Germany, it was before WW2 and they were actually looking for a pesticide. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, semantics. My training is as an engineer - not English. One thing is for sure, it is nasty stuff. My exposure to chlorine gas 8-9 years ago still has my coughing, all because the normal operators failed to notify anyone the ventilation hood gage was stuck. Needless to say, I ripped them a new one sounding like a toad and retired to a restroom where I was coughing up blood. Sadly that was not the last time I was exposed to a harmful gas because of faulty unreported gages. Acetic acid cause sinus and eye burns. After the last one, we had some clearing of house. I can only imagine the terror some of the small kids are feeling being exposed and unaware of what is happening to them. That is why it is a war crime. AZOperator (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Couple of more

[2] and [3]
•–• 10:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please write these:

(I will be afk until Monday; so I was wondering if you could write about):

  1. Coco winning Academy Award (last day of freshness)
  2. Sri Lanka announcing emergency as violent clash between Buddhist and Muslims breakout.
    •–• 08:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I can only promise to look into it. The Oscars really don't interest me and I see it as non-news. It's already over-covered by other sources. --SVTCobra 08:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Not Coco, though. I had asked Sveta and mikemoral on irc—hope two editors don’t end up writing same story.
•–• 09:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Tree article

Could you review my removal of the claim that the tree was near the tomb? (De Wikischim pointed out the error; fortunately there's still time to fix it.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:32, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Already done. I was writing on the talk page as you sent this message. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
In the same vein, could you review my change of the photo. That is, if you agree. Cheers, --SVTCobra 12:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Admin candidacy

Hello. I’m surprised and honoured you have nominated me but I’m not sure that I’m qualified to be a WN admin yet because I’ve only got 2,000 or so edits and I was inactive here for about a year in 2017 (real life commitments and all that). Although you have highlighted some of the permissions I hold, I feel that I’d have to highlight that I’m also an OTRS volunteer and have only just started as a steward (quite literally a few days ago). I was going to put myself forward as a potential candidate in a few months because of the inactivity last year and I’m concerned standing now might seem like hat collecting (something I disapprove of). I would be grateful if we could discuss this just a little before I consider whether to accept the nomination. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it will likely take a few months before we get enough qualified votes on the nomination. I don't think it ought to be considered "hat collecting" for no other reason than we did not discuss it ahead of time, and I did not know about your recent stewardship. My motivation is to help Wikinews operate more efficiently. With all the speedy requests you make, it makes sense if you could do it yourself. If you truly do not want to stand for RfA at this time, please decline at WN:RFP and I will withdraw and close the nomination. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
"...to help Wikinews operate more efficiently." I think we have a similar mindset. Green Giant (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
By the way, only two months of activity are required for consideration for Adminship. --SVTCobra 02:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Aye, my current activity since 12 January is almost two months anyway. I’ve accepted the nomination by the way. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 03:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

State of emergency in Sri Lanka fails to stop violence

Argh. If only I'd gotten to the article yesterday (not that I can get away with "blaming" myself for it, all things considered, but that doesn't stop me from wishing), I suspect there'd have been no problem. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added sources and tried to make it good as new again. I kept the original article as intact as possible. I wrote a new lede, moved the old lede down below the old article, added a few more sentences, and wrote a paragraph about Friday and Saturday. (P.S. Let me or Svetlana know if you got a notification from me using your name in the edit summary.) Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@SVTCobra, Gryllida: Afaict, I did not get pinged by the link in the edit summary. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Not yet, that's planned to be live on the 15th. --Gryllida (talk) 01:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Left a question at the article talk page, which I may be unable to look into until a few hours later. --Gryllida (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
My review was bogging down; see my review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

HackerGeek

Sorry! Sir Ken Dodd has died at the age of 90, if you didn't know. HackerGeek (talk) 10:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

MissPoison

Can you help me? My page is being constantly vandalized by an I.P address 5.158.88.105. Could you protect my page please? MissPoisonIvy (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

No, but I could have you investigated for sockpuppetry. --SVTCobra 15:53, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
This user is now globally locked for abusing multiple accounts. They logged in from the same IP they claim is abusing them, which is now globally blocked. Green Giant (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it was pretty obvious. They accidentally made the above request with the IP address. LOL. I am pretty sure HackerGeek was part of it, too. --SVTCobra 16:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yep, HackerGeek confirmed by their login IP, which commented or edited userpages and talkpages linked to JaySmith2018, the puppetmaster. Green Giant (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Moved the article though it had editing tag

Review priorities

I have in mind to attempt the Sri Lanka article again; we've all put so much effort into it, it'd really bother me to just let it go. It also bothers me that other articles are going to be starved for reviewer attention because of that choice, though. Just acknowledging here that I'm not unaware of the difficulty. --Pi zero (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe do the China article first. It should be straight forward. Limited sources. Quick and easy, methinks. I wish I could help, but I wrote all of the ones up for review. --SVTCobra 17:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: Sydney

(I've reworded the sentence that you were asking about.) Gryllida (talk) 21:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Off-wiki discussion

User:Zerabat (from eswn) notifies that Peru’s President has resigned. They also said they were busy translating Russia and Uber related articles so they would not be able to write about it. If you have a free slot, could you write about it? (Just to remind you, translation would help dividing the work so that all editors, they do not end up spending time behind same articles and help increase Wikinews’ productivity.) whatever your answer as, let me know. (CC@Yngvadottir:)
103.254.128.130 (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

another interesting story if you have time for it: “Man referred to FBI after his Malaysian flag was mistaken for an Isis symbol sues for discrimination bit.ly/2ub4SL4”
103.254.128.130 (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I am never lacking for story ideas ... and I am working on one now. --SVTCobra 01:14, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I don’t doubt it. But I doubt you have time to write everything you have planned to write about. So if you manage to find time, would you like to write about it.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Why can't you do it? As far as I am concerned, the flag story might belong in Wacky news. I am really out of touch with Peru. I couldn't name the President if I had a gun to my head (and I can name most of the South American heads-of-state). --SVTCobra 03:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
if you don’t want to do it, just say no. I asked for an objective answer, not return questions. I ask others only when I am sure I would not be able to do it. It is not hard to see the pattern.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 03:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
I am sorry. I thought "I am never lacking for story ideas ... and I am working on one now." was a polite 'no'. But you didn't understand that, I guess. I guess I should just be more direct with you. By the way, do you remember State of emergency in Sri Lanka remains despite calm returning after violence? Yes, that was a requested story. It took a whole week of my time and a ton of Pi zero's time, too. Two of my own story ideas went down the drain because of it. Not a single "thank you" and then you come back and make more requests? And when I tell you why I don't and ask you to why you can't yourself, you say I am not allowed to ask you questions? Are you even aware of how rude you are? --SVTCobra 03:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

If it is a “no”. Just say no. There is no AGF on this project so don’t give me all that politeness. I have received a lot of no responses all this time and it is not a problem. All that lengthy lines of politeness is honestly waste of time of yours as well as the readers if your answer is not objective. For Sri Lanka related article — I don’t have a working laptop, I wasn’t home nor is my health alright to even edit anything. Did you not notice decline in my activity? You are allowed to ask questions, but at least answer the objective questions with objective answers. Why can’t I do it is not an answer I expect. I have six exams in three days.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I had personally read 'I am never lacking for story ideas ... and I am working on one now.' as a 'no'. I'd suggest for now to suggest stories, make a new draft, put an
to the top, Category:Proposed article at the bottom, and leave it at that. I'd look after that category, cleaning that mess up could be left to me personally, I volunteer. Gryllida (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why can't you do it? is not an invasive question. To answer it, you don't need to go into details of your personal life. You could just say "I'm busy" or some other generic thing. --SVTCobra 12:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

You still did not get it, I feel. Even when I have articles to write, if someone says “can you write article about X”, I fit it in my schedule; so you need to tell me, if you have time to do it or not; and if we go for indirect approach like the above, next question is: are you willing to write it or not? — that is why an objective yes/no would help me ask Ferdi2005 or Ezarate or George Ho, Mikemoral about it. As for answering why I cannot do it, isn’t the de facto answer “I am busy”? For the record, my laptop is not working, I don’t have stable internet, I have exams and I am ill. (Beat that, in terms of crossover, Infinity War) I wrote an article about rhino even though I had tests, but now without enough internet data, it is not possible (that too on phone) Tgat is why I have applied for hardware donation.
•–• 12:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, the answer is NO!. Is that basic and "objective" enough for you? I love how you always phrase things in terms of what other people need to do. If your data consumption is so precious, why are you wasting it on this conversation? --SVTCobra 12:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
so that I do not need to waste data the next time I ask.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
One thing that will waste even less data and time for all is to just not respond. I am considering that option for the future. --SVTCobra 12:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Re category redirects

(CC@Pi zero, Mikemoral, Gryllida:) On enwp, the “/wiki/🇳🇵“ is a redirect for Flag of Nepal. Should we create redirects for country categories on enwn?
•–• 12:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what that symbol is.
  • Is there some situation where such a redirect would be useful to us?
--Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
is the emoji not appearing on your screen? It is Neapl’s Flag link. It would reduce typing for those on mobile device, and searching becomes easy.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Huh. Our primary use for them is for links to Nepal within articles to work. Perhaps consider using a mobile app that automatically replaces the utf8 symbol with the respective word, then you would easier type them not only in the URL bar but everywhere. Just a thought. Gryllida (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Now you are thinking for the editors and not users. enwp does not use it for linking purpose; for the record. Having an application to replace words, we aim to reduce labour for readers; not increase it.
•–• 21:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Use a script globally as this is not terrific. Gryllida (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
For context, see the ENWP page being referred to above. I'm in two minds about this proposal. On the one hand my mobile phone browser comes equipped with a set of national flag icons, which I've used on occasion in social media but not wikis, as far as I can recall. On the other hand I note that Category:News articles by country has more than 200 subcategories. If such redirects are created, it should perhaps be limited to country categories with X number of articles, where X is an arbitrary number we choose. Green Giant (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
not only that is a biased way; it is pointless. Why set a threshold unless there is a good reason and why to favour certain countries over others.
223.237.203.247 (talk) 16:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Speculation about a train

I really do see what you have in mind there. Put a great deal of thought into my review comments, to try to articulate what about it wasn't working for me. --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is an experiment. That's why I kept it short instead of investing too much time into this type of reporting which borders on commentary/criticism. But, alas, I haven't read your notes yet, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised   --SVTCobra 22:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, if you want to catch up (on the number of articles written, :-P)

A US, NY to be precise, related story you could write. As US crime and law isn’t my strong point, maybe someone with more experience doing it makes sense.
223.237.199.38 (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, I saw this yesterday and thought of you: [4] BBC is clearly not enough of a source for this (and it's already at least a day old. But no, I don't want to get into a race. We'd be fighting for Pi zero's attention. Also, we might be shitting out low-quality articles just to get the numbers. By the way, there's a WN:FRRFP I'd like you to give your honest opinion on. Try to do it logged-in, if you don't mind. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
regarding the paper leak, I have been tweeting about it since Wednesday and unless there are no serious updates, it isn’t fresh. Funny how I never thought about a reexamination three years ago when our paper was extremely difficult and lengthy; shocked the hell out of me that I don’t want to think about it. Regarding pi’s attention, we both could review each other’s articles, only if I could find enough continuous time in one slot; and if we are going to do that, I need to tell you (and should have told pizero) about my college time table. But neither do I find you on IRC, nor is the email option available for you. I searched “SVTCobra” on telegram, didn’t find any user. But, if I feel my article did not live up to the threshold level, I don’t type it; you are aware that I write each story in my journal before typing it on-wiki, right? Also if I am not satisfied with my work, I ask reviewer for a stricter review; all that helps to improve and also avoid poor content getting out. For voting, I would, later after I finish some off-wiki business; but for a comment, anyone can, I feel.
•–• 05:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I suppose you're not sharing college timetable here because you do not want it to be publicly available? Or what is hindering you? --Gryllida (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Can't see an ideal way to share a screenshot with just a few folks. Well, SVTCobra, your article count, per MyList is 258.
•–• 11:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Left a comment, SVTCobra. If you could just respond to the questions implicitly mentioned, I could cast a vote.
•–• 13:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
The fan broke on my laptop, so I am in worry of over-heating and may need to go offline at a moment's notice, but I am reading your lengthy comment and hope to be able to reply shortly. But if I don't, you know why. --SVTCobra 14:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I made my reply. The fan started spinning again, but it sounds terrible. Need a new one. We can and should review each other's articles, but I still don't like the competition aspect. Too much motivation to fail an article of the competition. It'd be like if a football team could give yellow cards to the other team. I know, and fully understand, you see it as a way to increase Wikinews' output and get more articles published. So let's just push ahead and aim for trophies and not pit ourselves against each other. Let bygones be bygones. BTW, I did call you out a little bit in my reply, so I hope there are no hard feelings. Wikinews needs us both, imho. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

WMF Surveys, 00:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind moving a page (without leaving a redirect)?

Let me know if you are online and can rename a page.
•–• 06:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't there for this. Well, you can always do a rename and tag the redirect for speedy deletion. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
That is kind of messy, and even though it demands admin’s attention in both the cases; I tend to ask for moving without a redirect.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 03:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

editprotected

when you are editing a protected page (probably due to ep request) and if you have "copious free time", consider wikifying, filling out the categories, making ASCII quotation fixes, and all those things I can't remember right now. Even if those things were not requested -- and some admins do not like to club those unsaid requests, but it is better to fix the article (till that point of time) in as less number of attempts as possible.
•–• 23:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am doing lots of {{w}} and local links. I don't know what you mean about ASCII. Yes, I saw you made such an edit to our latest published article but I could not discern what the changes were. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Notice the difference: “,’ vs ", '. The later ones are ASCII characters, which should be used.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Breaking news

Out of norridgewock Maine a cop has been killed. --NSSusers (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What's your source? --SVTCobra 00:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/04/26/manhunt-after-police-officer-killed-norridgewock-maine/553107002/ --NSSusers (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Why did you delete the source templates? They are there to be used. Also, this happened yesterday, so definitely not breaking.--SVTCobra 01:07, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Did you think I was going to write the article for you? That's not how it works. I'll be happy to help you if you have any questions. --SVTCobra 03:59, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

US: Tennessee House and Senate pass The School Safety Act of 2018

You've noticed, of course, that the article is quite stale, right? (I know, it can take a long time to review an article that's obviously a no-go, because one wants to give the reporter plenty of feedback so they can improve. I just did one like that myself.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I just want to see if I ca help the author i style tips. Also, if Gov. signs it should be good to go. --SVTCobra 14:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe that reporter — whose enthusiasm I've noticed, I agree they're well worth helping with feedback — is still struggling with the whole "write in your own words" thing. (Best example I know of advice that doesn't help someone who hasn't got the hang of it yet: "write in your own words".) --Pi zero (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

NASA InSight article pending edit

Two edits were submitted (history); I examined and rejected the earlier one, which seemed to really want a second set of reviewer eyes on it, and left a remark on the talk page. However, the second, smaller edit I left pending, as it seemed to call less for a second set of reviewer eyes and more for an inspection by the reviewer who did the review in the first place and is, presumably, already fairly immersed in the material. So I invite you to take a look at that. If you want me to dive into it, of course, just let me know. --Pi zero (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I commented and pinged the author on the collaboration page. --SVTCobra 20:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The author has replied but rather than disallowing the reverts myself, I think it best that you look at both of our comments on the collaboration page and make a decision. --SVTCobra 22:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Noted. --Pi zero (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Special:Diff/4404622 I wish you didn't open that old bag of bones. Wikipedia is pretty consistent in disallowing user-edited sources. And just imagine the circular nightmare if both WP and WN allowed each other as sources. I feel your comment is just saying "Wikinews is better than Wikipedia". Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "better"; they're fundamentally different, serving different functions and having operational properties profoundly different from each other, so that there's no meaningful way to rate them on a single good/bad dimension. Wikipedia is inherently incapable of being a trust-worthy source, and the things Wikipedia would have to do to change that, are realistically impossible — the Wikipedia community would have to embrace things it collectively hates about Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they lack the reviewed-revisions and people change items that have a foot-noted source to something that's not in the source; but your comment was not exactly endearing nor on-point as far as this specific article. It was a jab at Wikipedia, however justified it may be, and didn't address the issues. Your previous comment was sufficient. Let's not antagonize an obviously talented writer who already knows how to use {{w}} and {{sources}}. He may be a little irritated and possessive/protective of his work, but who isn't when they start out? Some still are after nearly 300 articles. Cheers,--SVTCobra 00:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Meh. The difference isn't about superficial technical stuff like that, but most of the difference also isn't relevant to my comment you've objected to, either. --Pi zero (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
OK. Either way, I think we have a pretty good article about the launch. Sorry if it put you off-track again for the automation project. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(Did not know where to drop a message)

@Green Giant, Pi zero: with SVTCobra and me involved, there are four reviewers online at the moment. RQ is flooding, I will be writing articles, and Pi zero does not write (haven't seen them writing for three years) so maybe all need to pick an article, and if possible, use an IM to properly communicate to work more efficiently. (Oh, by the way, the article I am working on is on the last day, so kind of urgency :-/ but well, we need a very instant type of communication medium)
•–• 17:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Pakistan transgender article

Hope I'm not stepping on your toes. --Pi zero (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget to sight the page after protecting against renaming


•–• 06:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I didn't think it was the type of action that needed to be sighted. I'll keep it in mind going forward. Thanks, --SVTCobra 06:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know the complexity involved -- in certain cases a protected (maybe the archive protection -- edit allowed for admins) would allow only admin + reviewer to sight it; however, changing protection will add a [review] message.
•–• 06:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
BTW, you think you can do a late night review?
•–• 06:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, do you know any native German speakers? I guess @Green Giant: knows Deutsche.
•–• 06:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In real life, yes, but on Wiki I do not. I see Green Giant has contributed to dewp, but usually in English on talk pages, and often apologizing for basic knowledge of German. My own German topped out at a couple of university level classes, but it is very rusty. Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
In real life, you say? Would they translate a couple of German articles for us on a fine Saturday?
•–• 07:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
If they agree, here are the links: 1, 2. I want it in this format.
•–• 07:06, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Same here, I studied French and German at university but I wouldn't describe my current knowledge of German as more than a conversational level. Green Giant (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The people I know are acquaintances I gathered professionally. They are, without getting too specific, what you'd call businesspeople. If I were to contact them, it would be for a job referral or reference. I shan't trouble them with this. --SVTCobra 10:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Need your urgent help

Might even consider joining #wikinewsie-group on IRC so that we can discuss this situation in real time. Need to get this one done in less than 3:30 hours. Sudanese teenager sentenced to death for killing husband in self-defence after being raped
•–• 20:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

If you keep it short, I can give it a review. But if I discuss too much on IRC, I might violate the rule about being involved with the development. --SVTCobra 20:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think you can be involved in the development of an article that is already written on the paper. Will be ready in ten minutes or so, excluding time to hyperlink. Gosh, we need an etherpad so badly.
•–• 20:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I would have been happy to add {{w}} at the same time as you add more text/sources. --SVTCobra 20:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Done. BTW, we could, in future use Wikimedia's etherpad, as I have used it for speeding up reviews, with numbermaniac. Ironically, on the same day, to speed up a review, I tried to tackle one real-life task which ended up me getting in an accident and I then I could move only two fingers.
•–• 21:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
ok, we can talk about etherpad later, I know nothing about it as of now, had to look up the word. --SVTCobra 21:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

55 dead in Israel-Gaza border clashes

Exams tomorrow. Overslept today. Would you mind reviewing it?
•–• 10:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Old Buddy

Hey is MessedRocker still active around here? What about Neutralizer? -MyName/Wazzawazzawaz

HELLO?!
Hi, no I have not seen MessedRocker in a long time. --SVTCobra 23:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding images

There's been some shifting around, over time, regarding how "involving" it is for a reviewer to add an image during review. A few years back, during times when I was usually the only active reviewer on the project for months at a time, it was not uncommon for me to add an image during review (I think; truthfully it's been a while, but I'm sure it sometimes happened, anyway). Because there were no other reviewers around, if I added something after review it would simply never have been reviewed and might as well not have been submitted. However, BRS made the point, comparatively recently, that since we consider the choice of image to be covered by the archive policy (an important policy point), this implies it's a somewhat substantive feature, so it's probably best that a reviewer not add an image during review. Once we have multiple reviewers around, we can clearly afford that, and so I have modernly waited until after I've published an article, then added the image without sighting it, for some other reviewer to consider. --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. I need to make one stipulation, however, adding a location map should not be part of that practice. It is as benign as adding an infobox. Obviously, if I added an image of Jesus on a Crucifix, with the caption "file photo of a person on a cross" that would be beyond reasonable on so many levels. And I recognise that choice of portraits can be flattering or very negative, so I hope a reviewer can still disallow some images even if they are on Commons for NPOV. --SVTCobra 18:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, some reports suggest that a first century Jewish shepherd and the portrait of Jesus are very different. I guess some people might consider the person in this photo to be Jesus. I hope Quill asks Bucky if he is Jesus.
•–• 18:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Everyone knows Jesus was black. Now, tell me why you removed the map. --SVTCobra 18:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing things

Any chance you could try the Swaziland article? I should do Hawaii. --Pi zero (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I can try, but I won't be doing the c*b*l bullshit. --SVTCobra 23:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
If by that you mean IRC, well, ac should be unavailable now. --Pi zero (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Because I was sleeping?
•–• 17:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Relatos Sobre Sexo

Please could you delete this page and leave a block note on the original authors userpage? Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 10:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Oops, I goofed on that one. I think it's fixed now. Thanks, --SVTCobra 10:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries, easily done. :) —Green Giant (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

{{source-pr}}

There's nothing wrong with it, afaik, but it's mostly a few oldtimers (older than me, that is :-) who use its ilk. Like many things set up in the Elder Days of the project, variant source templates seem to be a tradition imitated from Wikipedia (of the time) that got slowly transformed through usage here into a simplified, streamlined form suitable for simple, rapid use in news writing. The upshot being that it's now almost unheard of to use anything but {{source}} for citing sources. --Pi zero (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Cobra wikitribune needs you

wikitribune.com great place for news wiki --Tribuneman2018 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll take one of the paying jobs, if you're offering. --SVTCobra 22:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The user has requested unblocking, or at least unblocking of the associated ip, so that they can "contribute to Wikinews in a fair way". I had considered asking them, at the request, to explain in their own words why they care to do that, in light of their remarks on Acagastya's talk page; but when I've considered actually writing such a question, and dealing with whatever response it produces, I just feel tired. So I haven't asked. However, even had I asked the question, I feel that as the blocking admin, I wouldn't be the ideal person to close the request.

Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll ask. Acagastya's suggestion of getting a rename via Meta would still leave the user blocked here. --SVTCobra 13:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If you have some time to spare

Would you mind joining IRC?
•–• 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I am there. Are you? --SVTCobra 10:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item

Experimenting with it? The category appears to be populated automatically. --Pi zero (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, so it is. I guess I expected to see it as a hidden category when I look at Portal:Microsoft. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Hidden categories are, well, hidden. On any but a category, a hidden category only shows up when you're editing; down at the bottom of the edit panel are default-collapsed lists of templates used and of hidden categories. That list is not, btw, updated by the software to reflect the currently preview, but always reflects the most recently saved version of the page. Or it used to be that way. --Pi zero (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe the Foundation people set up that category because their confused thinking about what interwikis are good for has led them to the misapprehension that there is something wrong when a wikidata item links to a redirect, so they're trying to psychologically punish volunteers who cause such things by making them think they've done something wrong (part of the Foundation's unconscious anti-volunteer bigotry; at least, in my experience it's usually unconscious). Hence my hiding the category. --Pi zero (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Aha, a little history. --SVTCobra 12:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

My new Username. and apoligies.

I have left my old name behind thank you SVTCobra. Gollum55 (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Late night review?

Any possibilities you would stay up for a late night review? My writing queue is not empty, but I will write only if it would be reviewed in some hours. Otherwise, I would get some sleep -- no point in writing an article if all four reviewers would go to bed at almost the same time.
•–• 00:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, but seriously, how do you manage to edit during the daytime as well as at night? I think after November, I could not do that -- either morning hours, or night time.
•–• 00:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
It's really terrible sleeping habits. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night, sometimes I get by with naps in the day. I don't recommend it. --SVTCobra 11:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Renaming

See this.
•–• 14:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Though done is done, regarding the renaming in this instance (since there's nothing wrong with the headline as changed), I'm not convinced most of the changes to the article are correct in this instance; it's not at all clear to me that the presented capitalization rule applies here. I floundered around with flaggedrevs (sorry about that), but have finally settled on a state where there's a pending edit that would revert some, but not all, of the changes within the article; and I've left some remarks on the talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I have replied there. --SVTCobra 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Heh. Yeah, I saw the thread had proceeded there whilst I was writing my note here. Cyberspace can produce some strange time skews. --Pi zero (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Interactions

I will do my best not to pull you into any drama. If you walk away, I will not follow you or tell you to come back (which here means pinging you). Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no intention to get drawn in. As intelligent, verbose and eloquent as you both are, it is ironically getting real stupid. --SVTCobra 17:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think we're making progress. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

double links

If you can see the colour yellow (pizero raised the concern about this failing for someone who can not see certain colours), this script might help you -- User:Acagastya/double.js. It will add yellow as the background colour all the double links in that article.
•–• 19:18, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll consider it. --SVTCobra 20:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom

I know you are really afk, but any chance you could accept my the nomination for you contesting for ArbCom?
•–• 12:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Is SVTCobra on a vacation? Do we know when does it end? Gryllida (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I was and am still, Gryllida, however, my return seems to be shaping up to be within the next 10 days. However, it will likely be followed by further, yet shorter, breaks. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, great, thanks for telling this, SVTCobra! Wish you have a great time and settle back in when you return. --Gryllida (chat) 10:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Nodejs programming needed

  • Hello. Do you program in nodejs? Please see here. (Or do you know who does?) Thank you in advance. Gryllida (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
Nope. I wish I did. My last formal training was in COMAL, BASIC and Pascal. Sorry, --SVTCobra 22:36, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
OK. What a pity they are not used with MediaWiki. Great to know in any case. :)
--Gryllida (chat) 10:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

RC

Good to see your name in the Recent Changes again!
•–• 05:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --SVTCobra 13:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

PPP

There are two more redirects to be protected.
•–• 13:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "SVTCobra/2018 Archive".