User talk:CSJJ104

-- 14:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Royal Navy evacuates UK citizens from Libya
Published. Congrats! The image you'd added was a different ship (and was correctly labeled as such in the caption :-); well, stuff happens.

See. --Pi zero (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia stages military exercises as Ukrainian forces advance
Hi. On review I assessed this not-ready for publication. I found a bunch of distance-from-source problems, which were the real reason for the not-ready; there were also a bunch of points about attribution, though I'd noticed them earlier and figured I'd probably be able to cope with them during review. I tried to write it all up in a good set of review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Published. Please see my review comments, and .  --Pi zero (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Nigerian military launch counter-attack as Boko Haram insurgency believed to spread to Cameroon
Published. Had some particular concerns, as well as various more common stuff that came up. See my review comments, and . --Pi zero (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

WHO declares Ebola outbreak an international emergency
Published. See. --Pi zero (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Contributing reporter award
We don't always remember to award these (no lack of appreciation, we just forget). But you've clearly earned some sort of recognition. --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Kurdish forces advance as international opposition to Islamic State grows
NYT is behind a paywall for me. We have a policy against use of pay-to-read sources, and more practically, I can't access the source to verify information from it. So that's a problem with what looks like an impressive article. If I reviewed it in its current state, I'd have to choose between not-ready'ing it (which would hurt), and cutting out that source and all information that I can't verify from the non-paywalled sources (which would hurt too, and would make review more difficult &mdash; since it takes a lot more effort to determine something isn't in the sources than to determine it is, especially when there are a lot of sources). --Pi zero (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I will look for other sources CSJJ104 (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe that is all the changes necessary. Thanks for the consideration. CSJJ104 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we were able to address the matter promptly. Often this sort of thing lurks in an article till it gets reviewed some time later, and when the problem is uncovered everyone is far more frustrated.
 * (I honestly don't know if I'll be able to do a review tonight, so it may end up waiting for either another reviewer, or me in about twelve hours plus-or-minus. I'm afraid I don't bounce back from short sleep as well as I used to.)  --Pi zero (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Published. Nice. Review comments, . --Pi zero (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikinewsie cat
I boldly created a Wikinewsie cat to keep track of the articles you've written, Category:CSJJ104 (Wikinewsie). Hope you don't mind (let me know if you do). --Pi zero (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, although it perhaps presumes they'll all be as good :p CSJJ104 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Taliban attacks in numbers amidst Afghani political stalemate
Published. Review comments, . --Pi zero (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus damages countries' economies
Problem with specificity here. Relevance is evident; but specificity is both part of our newsworthiness notion in itself (keeping us separate from our encyclopedic sister) and also an enabler for freshness (which we don't judge by source publication dates, since those only indicate when something was being talked about, rather than when it happened). This is why the rule of thumb at WN:Basic questions, about the need for a "day" word in the lede, is so very handy: in order to get a "day" word you need both freshness and specificity. --Pi zero (talk) 11:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear: newsworthiness is a property of an article, not a story:  the article has to establish newsworthiness, in fact has to do so in the lede (and approximate it in the headline).  Sometimes an article just needs reshuffling to move something up into the lede; I've even seen cases (please don't ask me to produce one :-) where rewording the lede can transform an article from non-newsworthy to newsworthy.  In this case, I'm not seeing a specific focus in the article, but I've noticed this story has been talked about in the press lately, so there may be something floating around somewhere concrete enough to hang an article on (and once one has an article, one can spiral outward from the focus to background).  --Pi zero (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly there is something, but also possible the Financial Times, Bloomberg or someone thought it a good report, and the others latvhed on to the idea. CSJJ104 (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Renegade General's forces claim responsibility for aerial attacks on Tripoli
Published. Review comments, . --Pi zero (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Islamic State capture Syrian airbase
Published. Review comments, .

I admit, I'm surprised I got through four full reviews today; my capacity averages, I think, slightly under 2.0 full reviews per day. I figure today's peak is partly because all four were by reporters who pretty much know what they're doing. --Pi zero (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Contributing reporter award
Absent-minded though I am, I remembered. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hah. Did I miscount?  Well, you've certainly got more than ten now. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Finding cats
Here's a trick for insiders (if you haven't already found it :-). In Special:Preferences, under the Gadgets tab, section User interface gadgets, there's a gadget called "Underline in green categorizable w links". Check that, and click save down at the bottom of the tab. Now when you look at, say, Islamic State capture Syrian airbase, all the local wikilinks through w have green underlining so they leap out at you. All of those links identify categories that one might consider adding to the article. Not all of them should be added, but they're candidates to consider. (The w template might seem as if it's "just" a way to enforce our policy of using local wikilinks when available, and of course it does do that, but its deeper purpose is to facilitate categorization.)

(Tangentially, other gadgets I particularly like are "Review progress", "UTCLiveClock", and "Automatically add the opinion page of an article you watch to your watchlist".) --Pi zero (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that is likely to become very helpful :) CSJJ104 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia accused of supporting Ukrainian rebels' advance
I'm sorry this has been held up on the queue. I don't hold it against Rockerball, everyone's always busy I know, but I'd kind of hoped he'd be able to get to the review after all, as I figured it'd be more breadth of experience for you with different reviewers. Unfortunately, the story is a rapidly moving one, and I'm not entirely sure if the article will still look fresh (so I expect to have to take the temperature of current news out of Ukraine as part of the review). --Pi zero (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Published. Some thoughts on this; review comments.  ---Pi zero (talk)

Meta-comment on categories
Kind of a miscellaneous point but &mdash; thank you for pushing me to write out a bunch of these category-creation principles. We've been wrestling with the category hierarchy for years, and working out all these principles, and not writing it all down anywhere. --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem, part of the reason is I'm more used to Wikipedia and it's more developed policies. I understand this is a newer wiki, but it is possible that more categories mean more links (the equivalent of sister links) can be added to Wikipedia. It's what attracted me to Wikinews, and might do the same for others. --CSJJ104 (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not just that it's a newer project; it isn't as new as you might think, founded just at the end of 2004. It's taken years for us to figure out as much as we have about how to run an operation at the intersection of wikis and journalism.  But largely, I think, our shortage of good documentation has the same cause that, so I hear, causes skimpy documentation of practices at small professional news operations:  everybody is too busy implementing the day-to-day operations to write about how they're done.


 * Our most recent major addition to the documentation, for instance, is WN:Newsworthiness. That's all been very stable practice for many years.  You'd think we'd have written down something so fundamental a long time ago, wouldn't you?  We talked about writing it up for several years before we did it.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia sister links
I suppose I should have just kept out of that kerfuffle. You'd think by now I'd know not to rise to trolling about Wikinews on Wikipedia. --Pi zero (talk) 00:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Libya accuse Qatar of intervening on side of rebels
Published. Edits during review for neutrality &mdash; adding attribution, removing analysis. --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:War in Donbass
I finally processed the editprotected requests to populate this. Even if we decided to rename the cat later, it's surely easier to populate now and move later, than to have to reconstruct the list later. --Pi zero (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible Sources on EU Referendum
Leaving these here for reference (mine as well as anyone else interested).

News Sites

 * http://www.breitbart.com/tag/eu-referendum/
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35603388
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/eu-referendum/
 * http://www.theguardian.com/politics/eu-referendum

UK Government

 * https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/
 * https://www.eureferendum.gov.uk/q-and-a/publications/
 * https://www.gov.uk/government/topical-events/eu-referendum

EU Government

 * http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/uk/2016-uk-settlement-process-timeline/

--CSJJ104 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Campaigns

 * http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/news
 * http://www.strongerin.co.uk/news#ypaVHsd1KJITvuIM.97

--CSJJ104 (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Britain votes to leave the European Union
Published.

I'd noticed you kind of dropped off the wikimedia grid last month, in the midst of writing a brexit-related article here. Had wondered if you were okay. Thanks for covering the vote outcome. --Pi zero (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your concern, but nothing to worry about, just life getting in the way :)--CSJJ104 (talk) 19:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Life does that. Glad to hear.  And, presumably, there will be further opportunities for ongoing coverage of the story, if you're interested in doing so &mdash; and if life cooperates. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Germany article
Unfortunately, this article has gone stale. Any chance you could freshen it up with something newer-ish?--Bddpaux (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * - I gather I was too late for this. I did look, but nothing jumped out at me. Oh well, hopefully more luck next time. --CSJJ104 (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Kenya's supreme court upholds election result
Kenya's supreme court upholds election result has been published. Please see my review comments. Cheers, SVTCobra 13:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for taking the time and for supplying helpful comments and links in your revision comments :) --CSJJ104 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Digital pound
FYI, if you want to write a follow-up to UK Treasury considering plans for digital pound, economic secretary says, Digital pound likely this decade, Treasury says is out today. Heavy Water (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

United States ends Title 42
Hello, could you spell check my article on the expulsion of illegal immigrants from the United States?´please--Jusaset (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any spelling errors, but I did make some small changes for grammar. You might find it helpful to read WN:STYLE if you haven't already, particularly WN:LEDE. CSJJ104 (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello colleague, thanks for looking at my news article on the current migrant crisis at the southern border of the United States, a news that was covered in more than 50 countries but is still in vain. My contribution was not able to convince the expert reviewer that this article is essential for the national security of the United States is maintained, could you continue helping me, my reasons for which I limit myself to doing it is that I do not know how to speak English. --Jusaset (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)