Talk:ACLU, EFF challenging US 'secret' court orders seeking Twitter data

Video

 * The video on this page doesn't play, I tried it on three very well known media players. The problem is it is in a very obscure non-standardized video file format. Will someone please reformat the file to a proper format such as avi/mpg/wmv etc so that it can be played on normal media players. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.178.56 (talk • contribs)
 * No. Those are all non-free formats. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Original reporting notes

 * All interview data was shared with scoop. Please ask accredited reporters to confirm, and respect the cryptographer's wish not to be named! --Brian McNeil / talk 14:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Confirmed; they all look like they're verifiable. — μ 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Urgent review

 * Please note this article is marked for urgent review; not, as the template states, "breaking news". Do not publish with a breaking news template, please! --Brian McNeil / talk 15:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that quick review doesn't make the Review option available on the drop-down. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, really? Sorry, I didn't think about that, I just assumed it would work based on categories. DEN  DODGE  16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the template, but would've assumed the same. I just checked in the drop-down once you'd changed it. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I still have the option to review the article. Are you sure it's not just you? DEN  DODGE  16:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It comes up now &lt;shrug&gt; --Brian McNeil / talk 16:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Scary review? 'tis a lengthy piece. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 16:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All interviewed subjects were notified 9-10 hours ago that this was pending review. The OR is confirmed above. Will someone (Anyone?) extract a digit from their derrier and review it soon? It's probably the most substantial piece of OR so far this year. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1209588 [Passed]

 * Heh, well that sucks. I was reviewing this too. That was a giant waste of effort on my part:(. Could have reviewed all the other articles in the time this single article took. Gopher65talk 15:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I actually started last night, and only just finished. The fact that I slept in between means some stuff might have slipped through, but it needed reviewing and I didn't realise you were also doing it. I would appreciate your second pair of eyes just to make sure—with an article like this, there are so many things that could be slightly wrong. DEN  DODGE  15:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever! Thanks to both of you for working this over (instead of me). --Brian McNeil / talk 15:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)