User talk:Acagastya/Archive/γ



Year-end articles
As I recall, toward the end of 2014, sometime in December I think, someone raised the possibility (on IRC, perhaps?) of a year-end article, and we rejected the form of general year-in-review article that had been traditional long ago on Wikinews because our coverage of major events has become a smaller part of our emphasis in recent years; I recall we brainstormed on what events of the year each of us thought particularly memorable, and a bunch of them weren't in our archives. (Summarizing the year leans toward the encyclopedic, so if the concept is to have any chance of working it needs grounding in Wikinews coverage.) Someone suggested a round-up of Wikinews OR, we worked up such a thing to see how it'd look, and after a protracted vetting process involving several veteran Wikinewsies, ultimately we ran with it. --Pi zero (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Verification
This support edit was made by me. (But Ping won't work for IP.) acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 12:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping doesn't work for IPs? No, of course it wouldn't.  Just as it's not possible to thank IPs.
 * Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Tweet

 * Heh. It's a nice piece of markup, yes.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But I don't understand why can't we have it? Those news websites either have screenshot or embedded to the article. Here, we might have problem with screenshot's license, and won't work. Why isn't it encouraged? acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 15:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Argh. This gets into some very deep ideas about news and Wikinews and communication.  Deserves a careful answer (possibly involving some wiki-archaeology), which however means I'm inclined to wait till I get a chance to tackle it properly.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Audio Wikinews
I'm worried that, between the two of us, we might have hurt the feelings of the person who did that earlier audio wikinews file. I thought it was really great that they did that; replacing it seems awfully harsh. I couldn't quite bring myself to reject your edit on the grounds that there was already an audio version available, but now I'm kind of wishing I had. Because the idea of maybe hurting the feelings of someone who was trying to help makes me very, very sad. --Pi zero (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it was not my intention. Only because of the clarity issue, I made it. I will personally talk to him. Actually, I had plans about podcasts. Past three days, I was working on print edition as well as AWN. Because of that edit, I got the grounds to begin. The template for print edition isn't yet completed. But I am really sorry for stealing his edit. acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 16:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Flaming felines
Just so you're aware, we've had an extremely prolific sockpuppetmaster periodically vandalizing the project for years whose usernames often are some variation on kittiesonfire; cf. Category:Sockpuppets of Dantherocker1, especially the ones listed alpahbetically under "k". Lately they've come by relatively infrequently, and we haven't bothered to checkuser them and add them to that category. --Pi zero (talk)
 * So we have a bad kitty here. Might have lost the yarn ball. (Point to remember, never save a kitty on fire at Wikinews.) acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 21:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Date on awn?
I've listened to the latest awn twice, and it really sounds to me like it's saying the recording was made on the fifteenth. This seems odd.
 * "The sun was shining on the sea, // Shining with all his might: // He did his very best to make // The billows smooth and bright— // And this was odd, because it was // The middle of the night." &mdash; Lewis Carroll

--Pi zero (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that is very embarrassing for me. Such a big minor error. Let me rectify it, just recording seventeenth and editing it. acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 19:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

awn trivium
This doesn't bother me much &mdash; probably not worth fixing &mdash; but, for future reference, there may be some problem with the UTC reckoning that goes into those awns. The one for the cyclone said it was recorded on October 20 at 1258. Which is the right date but probably incorrectly using a 12-hour clock for UTC; I could believe it was made at 0058 UTC. --Pi zero (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I used to search UTC time on google.com to see what is the time. Will keep in mind from next time. acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 18:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On Special:Preferences, Gadgets tab, under User interface gadgets, second listed is UTCLiveClock. Doesn't help when you're not logged in, though.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Properly, there is no "a.m." or "p.m." to UTC (also, when written, no colon between hours and minutes, on which the gadget is incorrect :-). As I write this the time is eighteen thirty eight UTC.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Distance from source
Fwiw (perhaps not worth much, since everyone does things differently, but, just in case the perspective suggests something useful to you), when I write synthesis (which, unsurprisingly, I mostly don't have time to do), I choose my sources, then looking through them I set up a local file on my laptop with sections for various elements of the story I think I might cover &mdash; more-or-less a possible outline for my article &mdash; and in each section I quote what all the sources have to say about it, sometimes including whole paragraphs (it's just a temporary private copy on my laptop, so, no copyright problem). Then I write my synthesis, and as I consult each section I can see what all the sources said about that particular thing and write something in a completely different way from any of them that fuses together all the information I want. --Pi zero (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

`

Afghanistan hit by magnitude 7.5 earthquake
It's good practice to list your sources on the article before you start writing the text. After all, you have to have chosen them in order to start drawing information from them. --Pi zero (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd review it now if I could. (It bothers me to not immediately review an article about an event with potentially a rising death toll, and I'm also worried that the ABC source might be replaced with either a later AP article, because AP does that sort of thing, or with an in-house article by an ABC journalist because news orgs that initially use wire services may tend to do that sort of thing.)  --Pi zero (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Original Reporting about Afghanistan earthquake
I made the article with IP ‎14.139.242.195. You can see, I am in Neemrana, that is Alwar district of Rajasthan, India. The notes are: acagastya   &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 22:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Reading an eBook on my bed, my bed was shaking.
 * 2) I noticed the time in my laptop, it was 2:50 PM IST.
 * 3) My friend entered the room moments later and exclaimed that it is an earthquake.
 * 4) Last year, in Gujarat, there was an earthquake of 4.7 magnitude, when I was sitting on a chair. But this felt stronger.
 * 5) The vibrations decreased. And the next moment, it increased. The laptop clock crossed 2:51 and the vibrations stopped. It wasn't 2:52.
 * 6) I messaged my school friends at around 3.
 * 7) My roommate, who took part in TALF activity of treasure hunt felt the vibrations, but he wasn't sure if it was an earthquake since he had headache.
 * 8) I thought that it would be under 5. Later, at night, one of my friends asked if everything was alright.
 * 9) Since my laptop wasn't connecting to WiFi, I was unaware that it was 7.5
 * 10) Another friend said that she saw the news. So I checked. (I went to Windows 8.1 from 10) and it was 7.5 magnitude.
 * Further to add, today, since I slept very late, in the afternoon, I asked my friends who are in Pilani, the neighboring district about the earthquake. One said that he felt the tremors. Another friend also told that their lectures were going on and thus, the projector shook by the waves and they asked the professor to cancel the lectures. Many of them left the class. acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 08:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Asked another friend from Gurgaon NCR. He said the students were asked to go out in the open ground and return after some time. Most of them went home. acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 08:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My friend (in BITS) added that he was in library, listening to music when suddenly all of them rushed outside. later he discovered that it was an earthquake. acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 13:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

IP edits
From now, I don't take the responsibility of 14.139.242.195 unless specified here. (Which, I believe I won't commit.) Goodbye! acagastya   &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 16:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Barça thrashes Real Madrid 4-0 in first El Clásico 2015/2016
I confirm that the IP edits were made by me till 06:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC) acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 22:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League 2015-2016
Yes, all 5 articles are written by me till 15:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC) acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 15:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, acagastya. Figured it kind of had to be you.  It really is great you're so enthusiastic about Wikinews (other than the usual worries about time budgeting), but... five articles?  If you want to cover a whole bunch of games in a short time like this, you really need to devise a way of writing one article that usefully covers the set of them (without simply multiplying the review effort by the number of games).  --Pi zero (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is: all of them belongs to different groups, and the group stages ended about 20 hours ago. Moreover, my semester was about to end. That's why I made them. They are not exactly correlated except being the matches of UCL. Well, isn't that allowed? acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 17:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see the problem. And, um, I'm not sure "allowed" is quite the right question.  Thanks for explaining; that actually helps, a bit, with the psychology of the thing.  But, I don't have the ability to split myself into five and have each one of me review one article; and I've found that, besides the sheer amount of time it takes to review an article, it's also not possible (for me, certainly) to do a whole bunch of full reviews one right after another &mdash; review requires me to spin up to a peak of mental alertness and maintain that pitch for the whole review, and by the time I've done that for a full review I'm tapped out for a while.  If I manage to do three full reviews in a single day, that was an exceptionally productive day, and often I don't manage more than one in a day (to say nothing of the other things I have to do in my life that may prevent me from doing any review on a particular morning, or a particular afternoon).  So I guess the question shouldn't be what is allowed, but what works.  We're all trying to produce good output, which means articles both written and reviewed; so to be maximally successful as a writer, one has to take into account how one's writing will play with the review side of things.


 * I'm not entirely sure but what there might be a way to write a single article that covered a whole set of games like this. I'll have to give that some more thought, and perhaps eventually I'll come up with a suggestion for how it might be done.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, but just a question. Months ago, there was a similar situation. For Copa America. Only one article was lost. How did we manage? I just can't recall. Still, BRS is there. He might take the share. Plus. Manchester United and Bayern's articles can be reviewed the quickest, I believe. Arsenals' victory is gaining importance for the dramatic win, but it still has a day more than (Manchester and Real Madrid). This time, I did not flood in too much statistics.


 * But I never knew that I would actually mess up. Sorry for that. acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 18:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't recall quite how we managed to get most of them, last time. Perhaps a combination of good fortune (availability for review) and .  With the current batch, I'll do what I can.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So far, one published, two gone stale. Tbh I'd hoped to do better by now (say, two or three reviewed); but, events irl had other ideas (always a random risk). I've been pondering the prospect of a combined article with a lede something like
 * Yesterday, in the UEFA Champions League, the final two group K matches were held, sending FC Somewhere and FC Elsewhere to the Last 16 knockout stage of the competition. FC Somewhere won 2–1 in an away match against FC Wherever, while FC Elsewhere won a 4–0 blowout at home against FC Whoever.
 * Presumably one would provide somewhat less blow-by-blow detail of the individual games, boiling things down to a somewhat more succinct account of each. --Pi zero (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, that would cover up the things, but that was the next article I was about to write before I could realise that I had messed up. Plus, the dramatic exit of Manchester United, or the new record by Ronaldo, and Giroud's hat-trick, in my views, needs some attention. (Believe me, in India, my college mates got crazy after the hat-trick; and United fans are so heart broken). Will look for it. Arsenal is next? I hope the images are helping. acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 09:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I was really very unsure which articles ought to be given higher priority.  (I think BRS mentioned the question of what articles were highest priority in the water cooler discussion, but it likely got lost amongst amongst the many other points that were being raised.)  --Pi zero (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Noting, unfortunately the Manchester United article was one of the two that lost freshness. --Pi zero (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Got the hat-trick article published. One article still on the queue, AS Roma; could still be considered fresh if review completed within the next seven hours.  I may be able to get to it (or, of course, someone else might). Actually, I haven't used the images, just worked through the sources (habit, maybe, since I've had a fair amount of practice by now with these sorts of sources).  --Pi zero (talk) 17:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just added a few details. Well, the thing is: the last article will surely take much time. Because it isn't that direct, and there will be a focal point issue. The thing is: Barcelona had already qualified for the Last round. And, any of the three could qualify. That solely depended on the winner. Bate wins, they would qualify. Bayer wins, they are through. And finally, Roma, with the previous record could qualify with a draw. And the match started at the same time.  acagastya    &#9993; Dicere Aliquid :) 17:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Football article
On day, based football club  defeated   at  in  in a.

had greater ball possession. The match saw. and a total of were committed in the match. . The first half ended in.

.

.

was awarded the man of the match.