User talk:LivelyRatification

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

An award for you
Hey, LivelyRatification, both the interviews were published. Good job! And interesting read! •–• 15:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for helping with original reporting this year. Happy New Year. --Gryllida (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi LivelyRatification
Many thanks for helping with a few copyedits, sources, and clarifications for original reporting this year. Happy New Year. --Gryllida (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Airdrie and Shotts
I'm genuinely having a bit of a moment right now, because I thought of doing the EXACT SAME THING for the UK elections, going as far as actually finding the web sites and manifestos of contestants for Airdrie and Shotts. Wow. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It will be really good if you both would be on IRC, and discussed the things to collectively come to some good ways of handling these things. When two people who know what they are doing -- when they collaborate -- it is such a rewarding experience!  Though, I hope you did not end up taking too much time behind the same interview,  -- maybe you can split, who handles what.  If you require a channel to discuss sensitive information, let me or gry know. •–•  04:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't end up pursuing it given the tight schedule. I reach out to a lot of electoral candidates for lack of more suitable options; currently running through some mayoral elections in the United States. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's quite a funny coincidence. I wish I'd thought of it earlier as I might have been able to get onto some other UK local elections. --LivelyRatification (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, haha. I actually got in touch with lots of the London ones...the day before Prince Philip's passing and all parties stopping campaigning for a while.  Made the follow-up e-mails rather awkward. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Re images of candidates
You could also ask them to send a photo of theirs to add in the article. It would be even better if you could ask them to release it under a free license, but if you can't find any, you should be able to ask them for it. •–• 17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Might keep that in mind for future. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

An award for you

 * Thank you! --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Your articles
Apologies, they went stale, I was busy irl. However, I should point out -- none of those mentioned wn:when in the article, which is essential. •–• 19:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for letting me know, I'll keep that in mind for future. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree
Honestly: thrilled to see ANYONE stick around here! But: a sun shade? M'eh......not sure that tracks in terms of worldwide audience, you know? However: don't run away! --Bddpaux (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a fair point. Thanks for the message! --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Swift article
.......published. --Bddpaux (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've just had a look at the feedback and I'll take that into account for future, but I appreciate you taking the time to review that. --LivelyRatification (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe........
....you like: city things and music things. Sound about right? Fine! But: the city things need to hold some level of appeal on a worldwide level. Lots of words is merely 'churnalism', and we try to watch out for that around here. --Bddpaux (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So would those sorts of city stories be considered inappropriate for Wikinews? I do get it with, for example, some of the other articles I've done, and obviously the article you've just looked at was stale, it happens sometimes - but per WN:CARCRASH, I thought something like that would be notable on the local scale. If it needed a rewrite or refocus, then I understand that, I'm just unsure where the line should be drawn here. Should I only write about things that have global relevance/appeal? --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously you're interested in things that can quite objectively range from "this is actually important, and I'd read it" to "sun shade on pool", and Bddpaux's policy of interesting a schoolteacher in Manila or a mother in Hong Kong seems excessively broad (Would they be interested in an interview with a mayoral candidate, or popular music in the USA?). I think CARCRASH could be interpreted to mean the article is notable, and therefore fit to publish, if and only if the action itself was notable (articles about hurricanes and similar natural disasters are discouraged unless exceptional) and the subject is notable if there is enough independent coverage, perhaps if it has two independent sources regardless of OR, and if the thing happening was more than routine. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Some more: the policy here has always been contradictory. What works for Bddpaux will likely not extend to Acagastya, or RockerballAustralia, or any other mod: that's WN:Notability for you. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to agree with it being contradictory. Largely, our actions have been fairly consistent. Really: at the end of the day....my 'policy' matters for naught. The project's policy always (should, at least) win. Really: my statements on my personal page are honestly just guidance from a salty old dog like me. And: CARCRASH does an acceptable job of establishing (early in) what would meet the bar for an acceptable LOCAL news story. We aren't local. We're global. The is truly one of those matter what we could yammer about for days and still get nowhere. Truly, at the end of the day: I'm just happy seeing people engage with the project. --Bddpaux (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I always took the two independent sources test as more a test of reliability rather than notability. For example, I thought that, putting aside the matter of worldwide notability, that the Latrobe Valley budget story would be inherently notable for local residents. If you live there, then your council rates going up by 1.5% are undeniably an important issue for you, regardless of if other media has covered it, and so just the primary source would be sufficient as a way to verify. And tbh, if the policy is contradictory, then that's an issue. I don't want to put a lot of work in an article just for it to be rejected because I got [x] reviewer instead of [y] reviewer. I'd rather be told unambiguously, "no, these aren't notable", than to spin the wheel every time. --LivelyRatification (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not ideal and, believe me, not fun for anyone. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This page is loading oddly for me, sorry if my comments are messed up in terms of flow. The budget story would absolutely be notable for local residents. But: we aren't local. We're global. This isn't Texas-Oklahoma-Louisiana Wikinews; it's English Wikinews. Honestly, in terms of source requirements, we could stand to tweak things just a hair on our policy. Frequently (not always), on a story that is my heavy OR, I try to glue in some kind of news bit from a mainstream source, when I can.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Still, I don't see the problem with Alison's approach here. Leaderboard (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Same here. SHB2000 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Lorde article
Sorry this failed.....it was good! Maybe an interview or online chatter from a good source could freshen things up a bit. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I might look into the topic a bit more and see if it can be freshened, but thanks for taking a look! --LivelyRatification (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Question
Many thanks for reading Australian politics news and covering it in Wikinews via interviews.

There are upcoming elections in the NSW state I believe, on September 4. Would you be interested in getting it into the news here perhaps?

I'm on IRC maybe we can talk more about your and my position there.

Regards, -Gryllida (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure! Fine to talk on IRC, I'm on #wikinews-en at the moment as LRatification. I'll get onto the #wikinews channel as well. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * are you on right now? Can't see you. I'm on the LiberaChat network, could that be the issue? --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

A wee bit belated, but.......
Congrats on becoming an Accredited Reporter.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Appreciate it :) --LivelyRatification (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Australia article
Certainly not as fresh as we'd like, but I tweaked it into submission! :) --Bddpaux (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for your help with getting that done, I wasn't sure what was happening there given it had been marked as "under review" for a while. --LivelyRatification (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

First: You did nothing wrong. You wrote an article and submitted it. Acagastaya pointed out (rather hurriedly, I might add) my publishing such a stale article. He's right. I won't do that again. We've had a pretty high level of engagement here recently, and I hate to see peoples' work go to waste. We SERIOUSLY need more reviewers working. There is no shortage of people around here who are MADLY IN LOVE with the letter of the law. Any chance you might want to become a Reviewer. They are needed!--Bddpaux (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was a bit surprised that you had published that article (by now, I'd just thought it was stale) but I'm not complaining, and I am glad that it was published. We definitely do need more reviewers - I'm a bit unsure as to whether I'm ready for the role yet, but I'd definitely be willing to put my name up. --LivelyRatification (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's give it a few days, and I will do exactly that!--Bddpaux (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Acagastaya believes nominating you for Reviewer is premature. So: just keep working and contributing. When you feel you are ready, nominate yourself. --Bddpaux (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

DaBaby Levitating remix losing US radio audiences after the rapper's comments on HIV/AIDS
It's been published. Thanks for the article! —chaetodipus (talk &middot; contribs) 07:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for reviewing the article! :) --LivelyRatification (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

4 local government areas in New South Wales, Australia locked down after COVID-19 case
Can't do anything now, but in future can you please spell out the small numbers? Consider going through WN:SG once more. •–• 06:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't know how I missed that. Will keep that in mind. --LivelyRatification (talk) 06:05, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
Hello. I’m sure you’re already aware of it but can I invite you to vote in our ARBCOM elections? If I’m not wrong, you are eligible to vote because you have had a significant number of published articles (5 being the minimum requirement), including several excellent interviews. [24Cr][talk] 15:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That must have passed by me! Thanks for the reminder, will do now. --LivelyRatification (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Lorde article
I have seen in recent changes that you prepare a story about Lorde's coming album. Talking from experience, this might run into problems as there is a purported advertisement and notability problem with new releases. This can be circumvented later, given the album receives a notable prize or acknowledgement, so the article might be salvaged (if it would not pass in the coming days). - Xbspiro (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Surely if an album is covered by enough sources, it becomes notable? I am making assumptions about this album, but if, say, 2 or 3 reliable sources were to review the album upon its release, would that not mean that its release has a level of notability? --LivelyRatification (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly, there should be something more than "XYZ records a song", "XYZ writes a book", "XYZ makes a movie". There needs to be something more than that.  Number of sources aren't enough -- there are new songs released every week, we can't possibly call them newsworthy.  Perhaps how they do on chart would help. •–•  09:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I kind of disagree. Per Newsworthiness, something is newsworthy if it is specific, relevant, and fresh. I don't think the specificity or the freshness are in doubt here, but rather the relevance. Like earthquakes, there are a lot of songs/albums released every day, so obviously "there was an album/song released" isn't inherently news-relevant, but I'd argue that it can be so if it's covered by multiple significant news outlets. If (to randomly name a few) Pitchfork, The Guardian, and the Independent all review an album at the moment of its release, I would argue that the release of this album is certainly relevant and noteworthy. I'm not saying this is necessarily going to be the case with this album. Sure, the release of a movie isn't necessarily notable, but if there's a bunch of notable publications reviewing and talking about it, to me that indicates notability. --LivelyRatification (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not every earthquake is relevant, we don't report small earthquakes or lightning strikes. But when there is some damage caused by it, that is when it has some weight to it to be called newsworthy.  The point you raise of other publications, publications are ready to review songs and albums and movies and what not for the latest hotshot.  But the same is not true for many indie song-writers and artists and film-makers and authors.  Their work, even if it was their genuine attempt would be classified as spam/promo and will be deleted on-sight, while on the other hand, I have no way of knowing if these articles were written just because the publication had a backhand deal with the recod company.  That is instantly inserting a bias against indie artists.  These publications would make even the shittiest work of "art" notable, and if so, make a wikipedia entry for that.  A book launch or album launch is not it itself newsworthy, just like volcano erupting on Venus isn't.  It gets newsworthy when it somehow stands more than just a mere declaration "yeah, launched".  One might argue the plastic-free box might be something worth reporting.  But tell me, when my local city newspapers (which have been used for previous articles and are reliable) write about new shops/restaurants opening, or wardrobe malfunction, or local kid doing something, or local singer performing, will you have had the same answer?  You are opening up to one hell of a landslide, so think carefully.
 * There are software releases every other week, and there are people who cover that news. Tell me, if you were a reviewer, would you accept articles like "youtube-dl, v2021.08.19 released" or "debian 11 released" or "ubuntu 21.10 released" or "firefox v92 released" or "vim v8.2.3350 released" or "git v2.32 released"?
 * I don't think people doing their job is in itself newsworthy. If their job directly affects a remarkable number of people which is newsworthy, then yes.  People doing things one will expect them to do, that is not newsworthy in itself. •–•  10:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not a reviewer, but as I see it now, reviews of works of art remain opinions, whereas non-fiction works might be reviewed based on facts. - Xbspiro (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Scotland
Thank you, im on Xbox one internet browser its hard to keep up trust me. 64.39.87.169 (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * All good! Might be better to try and restructure the article a bit - "Covid updates in Scotland" is a bit broad. Maybe structure it around today's cases specifically? Like, say "Scotland records 6,029 cases of COVID-19, cases spike in Glasgow region" (I have no idea if this is true, but as an example) --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Kind of stuck

 * South Gippsland, Australia local council candidate Sue Plowright speaks with Wikinews about environment, education, and other local issues
 * Australia: Mat Morgan, Greens candidate in South Gippsland, talks climate, tourism, and local issues with Wikinews
 * Latrobe City, Australia records first COVID-19 case since January 12 with new Traralgon case
 * Australia: Wikinews interviews Wayne Connop, independent candidate for Daly by-election
 * Australia: Victorian government announces plan to ban public display of Nazi symbols, expand anti-vilification laws

Hi. Unfortunately it seems like we are kind of stuck. I would review these, especially the Latrobe one (where I’ve just read your note asking for it to be reviewed first) but I don’t have access to WN-Reporters. It seems as though the other reviewers are busy elsewhere.

I’ve not paid as much attention to it but the obituary at South Australian Labor senator Alex Gallacher dies aged 67 is probably just past the freshness window. I couldn’t find anything on the funeral but that would be a way of refreshing the story perhaps.

On Olivia Rodrigo's Sour album returns to No 1 on US albums chart; Trippie Redd and Lorde debut in top five of chart, is the date correct where it says September 4? If so, I think that draft could be reviewed on Friday perhaps? [24Cr][talk] 23:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * darn. I'm not sure what could be done with the OR stories - I could forward them directly to you, though I'm not sure if that's good practice. I reckon the one on Gallacher is stale at this stage, and as for the one about the albums chart - Billboard dates their charts a bit weirdly, so the September 4 chart covers data from the 20th to the 26th of August. Technically yes, the chart is dated September 4, but it was published on August 31. Feel free to hop onto IRC if you'd like to discuss this there. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can send them to me directly if you wish. This is permitted by the second paragraph of the policy on WN:Original reporting. You can use Special:EmailUser/Cromium to reach me (I don’t like to advertise my specific wiki email address on here). It’s gone past midnight here so I will get to these articles later today. [24Cr][talk] 00:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations! You’ve got a clean sweep of all five lead stories on the main page. [24Cr][talk] 14:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Australia: Wikinews interviews Wayne Connop, independent candidate for Daly by-election
 * Australia: Mat Morgan, Greens candidate in South Gippsland, talks climate, tourism, and local issues with Wikinews
 * At least six injured after stabbing in New Zealand supermarket
 * South Gippsland, Australia local council candidate Sue Plowright speaks with Wikinews about environment, education, and other local issues
 * Latrobe City, Australia records first COVID-19 case since January 12 with new Traralgon case
 * Thanks so much for reviewing these articles, I really appreciate it! --LivelyRatification (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also just putting it here - I've forwarded OR correspondence for this article onto you, just in case you choose to review it and you still can't access the WN-reporters email. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations
I just wanted to congratulate you on being promoted to reviewer, and wish you good luck! Henrymyman (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words! In lockdown at the moment, so hopefully I'll be able to review articles quite quickly if no-one else can. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Active vandal
I have seen you have marked some edits as spam. If the activity spans over several wikis, you may request a global block on this page. Regarding the current case, see this diff. - Xbspiro (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know - I've only monitored activity here on enwn, so I wouldn't know if there's multiple cases of this. Is there anything we can do to block that user here outside of a global block? --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not without admin rights. We may restore previous page versions and mark pages as spam, but that's it, as far as I know. - Xbspiro (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, you may find a "Global contribs" link in the footer of Contributions pages - with that, you may check cross-wiki activity, and report the IP/user, if necessary. - Xbspiro (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Congrats
A little late, but congrats on becoming a reviewer! —chaetodipus (talk &middot; contribs) 16:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Not ready articles
I think in cases like this (i.e. when coverage is one-sided and provides little to no context), you may mark the article as not ready based on NPOV concerns. - Xbspiro (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Re-review request
Could you please re-review California to require large retailers to have gender-neutral toy sections from 2024 in the coming hours? I am on IRC to help out, if needed. - Xbspiro (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

An award for you!

 * Aw, thanks! Really appreciate the kindness :) --LivelyRatification (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Mrs vs Ms
The article incorrectly called her a Ms. Should we leave incorrect information in the article? Are you yourself aware of the difference between Ms and Mrs? Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am aware of the difference. The article uses Ms. over Mrs. in following with what the New York Times uses. Just because someone is married, that doesn't necessarily mean that they wish to be referred to as a Mrs. LivelyRatification (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)


 *  To be honest, I have been perplexed by this as well. Check out this article on en.wp. Miss and Ms do not hold the same meaning. - Xbspiro (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the style guide addresses this, but I'd be of the opinion that if it's unclear, it would be best to use Ms. as a default neutral term for female titles. In this case, while Mrs. is a term used for married women, not every married woman uses that term. Given the Times identified her as a Ms., I think the best practice here would be to use the term Ms. in this case. LivelyRatification (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused. How do you know she wishes to be called by that term and it wasn't a mistake by the author of the article? Gamle Kvitrafn (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * We don't know that it wasn't a mistake, but there's no reason to assume it was a mistake. Just because she's married, doesn't make her a Mrs., and given the one source that refers to her with such a title uses "Ms.", what is the reason to call her "Mrs."? LivelyRatification (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, Ms is always the safe choice. •–• 11:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Re: Australian Fair Work Commission rules that farm workers on piece rate entitled to minimum wage
Hi LivelyRatification

Thanks for sharing the story.

I was listening to a presentation about climate change,, which claimed that 'average farm in Australia loses $30,000 annually', as far as I recall.


 * I didn't believe it, and would be interested in verifying it. Do you know how could this be verified? If so, then it can be included in a last paragraph in the article.
 * Does the ruling, about which the news is, somehow change this situation?

Thanks and best regards, --Gryllida (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message!


 * In regards to the $30,000 figure, I found an article from the ABC that says that Australian farms are losing an average of nearly $30,000 a year due to climate change according to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. I don't think this should be included in the article, as it doesn't necessarily mean that farms are making a loss, but just that they're losing out on money due to climate change not being addressed.


 * I don't think the ruling changes this situation much. Obviously having to pay higher wages could put a strain on some farms, but it won't improve or harm the $30,000 figure, as that's a climate-related figure. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note, now it makes things a bit clearer to me, LivelyRatification. --Gryllida (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Exceedingly glad..........
You were promoted to Reviewer! Well done!--Bddpaux (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Aw, thanks :) LivelyRatification (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Janitorial duties
Congratulations! Your request for administrator was successful. Sorry about the delay in closing but outside life gets in the way sometimes. Since you’re new to adminship, please proceed carefully when using any admin tools until you’re confident in using them. However, pretty much everything can be undone apart from hurt feelings. 😁

I’m unlikely to be on IRC in the very near future but if you leave me a message on WN, I’ll try to get back to you ASAP. Once again, congratulations (or should that be commiserations?) Alternativrly you can pester Chaetodipus. [24Cr][talk] 13:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting Review
This is a major news Indian Prime Minister says all 3 farm laws to be repealed. Please review this news article ASAP as this a very fresh topic. Also, necessary changes have been succesfully made to Russia destroys Soviet-era satellite in ASAT test

Cheers! 2006nishan178713 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the message! I'll try and review Russia destroys Soviet-era satellite in ASAT test soon since that's the older story and could go stale, and I'll hopefully get to Indian Prime Minister says all 3 farm laws to be repealed later today. LivelyRatification (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, never mind: I'll review the farm law article first. Issue to address re: the ASAT article LivelyRatification (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification I have fixed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi promises repeal of three farm laws. Most copyvio elements have been removed. The only remaining are the quotes and the bill names which can't be changed. So yeah you can re-review it. Thanks! 2006nishan178713 (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Reduced from 57.8% to 44.8% 2006nishan178713 (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Update: reduced to 38.7% accordingly.
 * https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikinews&oldid=4650556&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1 2006nishan178713 (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Original reporting

 * Thanks for the barnstar! Have been a bit busy lately but very excited to get back to some more reporting/reviewing when I can. :) --LivelyRatification (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion order
Please follow the develop -> stale -> abandoned -> deleted order, when it comes to deletion in the main space. For example, you deleted the chess article (I think twice) while a chess tournament was going on. Some people don't know how to finish an article and need help. Some people think someone else will complete it -- sometimes something happens IRL and they can't do it and then someone else comes, looks at what it is, and finishes the article. Deleting without following the order is robbing people of that chance and this order exists for a reason. Please stick to it. •–• 04:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I thought that given the notice said the article should have been deleted in three days, and it had been three days, then the article should have been deleted. In future, I'll mark the article as abandoned before deleting. LivelyRatification (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * stale when the freshness has expired. subst:aband after inactivity of a stale article.  Wait four days for marking them abandoned.  Delete two days after the article was marked abandoned. •–•  05:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the other WN:PROD timescales. Imran khan was tagged with the minimal badge at 14:54 on 30 November. We allow at least three full days for editing to restart in earnest. That draft became eligible for deletion from 14:55 on 3 December because no attempt had been made to expand the narrative. Where such tags as “Minimal" are used, they should not be additionally tagged with the Abandoned badge. I hope that clears it up. 🙂 [24Cr][talk] 17:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I understood that - when an article is tagged as minimal, I won't mark it as abandoned until 3 days. LivelyRatification (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No, if it is tagged as minimal and three full days pass with no editing, just delete it using the rationale "Minimal information – three day warning". Don’t mark it as abandoned. [24Cr][talk] 00:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

We have really suggested using tasks, and not minimal for as long as I remember, and had a rationale behind it. (you can say minimal is deprecated -- has been, for a *very long time*). Pi had explained, say, if I create an article about an incident, XYZ, I write a sentence or two, and plan to work on it and submit it later, but due ot some reason, I couldn't finish it; minimal; which can be added on-sight (and *many* new users have been doing that, which, to me, looks like a character-certificate or an insult for a new article) -- is hardly giving me, others, and the article *any* time post the three-day freshness period, to try refreshing and then submitting it. Anyone can see the article is "minimal" -- the template is providing almost ZERO benefits, and when people start tagging articles left and right with this, this is only serving as a discouragement to others. It is almost as if everyone using minimal does not read what the template page says. "Please consider using Tasks instead." minimal should have been phased out (it existed before a formal process existed, and there are better templates to address specific problems now), for it is not doing any good, and is giving too little breathing space. When it was just the old crew, we all didn't tag articles with minimal (a word of suggestion -- as a newbie, if someone puts a tag on your article "this will be deleted" while you are just starting -- that is not going to encourage anyone), but this seems to be a trend of people in the last one year, doing that. Seriously, minimal is coming out as a "loophole" if you will, to skip past the whole lifecycle of the articles, which tagets specifically those articles which are by newcomers; even though deleting them that quick (and saving that time) is not actually helping anyone in here. •–• 04:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I can see why the minimal tag might be offputting to newcomers, but if I'm being honest, 3 days seems a fine enough time. If I'm not supposed to delete it after 3 days, I won't, but if someone makes an article that's essentially just a headline, fills it with minimal information, and then doesn't engage at all for 3 days, why would they then engage after 6 days? It's certainly not impossible but it just seems silly. Sure, an article being deleted is discouraging, but we can take measures to inform authors about what to do in the event they are here to contribute in good-faith, but if an article is likely to almost certainly be stale and consists of little more than a few words and a headline, then I can't see any value in keeping it around. 3 days, in my view, is not excessively quick or rushing to delete - it is our freshness window, and beyond that, articles are unlikely to be published without updates. LivelyRatification (talk) 06:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * An article is considered fresh for three whole days -- marking it as minimal means it in some cases, it can be deleted minutes after it was supposed to go stale. That is leaving very little wiggle-room for someone attempting to do any freshness to that article.  When we have one whole working-fine method for other articles; it really makes no point to use a primitive method, which had been long deprecated, and was hardly used by the old-timers, just to speedy up deletion.  minimal is not even an article life-cycle and is just a non-social, non-helpful way of saying "yeah -- too short, prolly will be deleted" instead of taking time and helping people how to address the problems and actually trying to help them. •–•  08:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please see talk page........
....for your MP article. Hope you can tweak/freshen and re-submit.--Bddpaux (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Have seen - not much I can do there, but might get started on another article. LivelyRatification (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Temporary change to article length
Hello. As a reviewer, this note is just to let you know we are implementing a trial from February 1 to April 30 to encourage more articles to be published per the outcome of a current proposal. The minimum requirements for article length will be one paragraph of at least a hundred words. At the end of the trial the requirements will return to normal (3 paragraphs etc) and there will be an evaluation discussion about the trial. Happy reviewing! [24Cr][talk] 23:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

High numbers of unexplained hepatitis cases reported in very young children ‎
Thank you for reviewing this article. I cannot stay around much longer, but hope that someone else can add the missing pieces which you wrote about on the article's talk page. It is not easy to write about a topic that little is known about and contradictions abound. For example Le Monde said when I last looked at it that there were no cases in France.

It sure would be nice to have this article published. Thanks again, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment
I recognise the backlog caused by my frequent absences—this too due to a dearth of reviewers which has prompted my initial candidacy. Most recently, I came down with Covid-like symptoms, and during finals week, too! I'll be more active in future—thank you for your diligence and hard work. It's greatly appreciated. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * What are the odds -- been dealing with similar stuff myself over the past few days, not COVID, but flu-type symptoms that have left me unable to do as much work here in the most recent days as I'd have liked. Thank you for the kind words, though, really appreciate it! LivelyRatification (talk) 03:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Minor miss
....on the Elon Musk article. Looks like some garbled up wiki markup got missed (pertaining to WorkSafe). I will try to fix it.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer request
I understand you're a very capable writer and reviewer, and want to know if you'd be able to review the current articles in queue as the primary author (Ottawahitech) and I seem to be involved in never-ending rows. Thanks! JJLiu112 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure -- was thinking of reviewing the Kavanaugh article later today (having problems accessing one of the sources at the moment) but fine with taking a look at the story on the US market too. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Talk:United_States_stock_market_enters_bear_territory#Issues to rectify
Thanks for asking some very good questions, @LivelyRatification. You obviously spent time looking at the article and the sources. so let me try and address your questions on your talkpage and not on the article's talkpage, which will likely be deleted in short order and will not be viewable by users without admin powers:


 * "Firstly": thank you for answering my question
 * "Secondly": As I understand it, the definition of a bear market is a drop from the highest point reached since the last bear market. I think?

As far as all the other excellent ideas, thank you, they are well thought out. They may help someone else who is interested in the topic, next time something happens with the stock market, which my crystal ball predicts will inevitably happen in the not too distant future. (but only if the writer is another admin who can still see those comments) Ottawahitech (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Temporary change to freshness
Hello. As a reviewer, this note is just to let you know we are implementing a trial from July 4 to October 4 to enable more articles to be reviewed per the outcome of a current proposal. The freshness window is being extended to about five to seven days. At the end of the trial the window will continue to be at 5-7 days while we discuss whether to adopt the change permanently or not. Happy reviewing! [24Cr][talk] 17:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Bans off Our Bodies protests occur across United States after leaked Supreme Court draft
Hello. When reviewing articles, please make sure they include some geographical categories before publishing so people can know where in the world this news took place. I am sure it was an oversight, so this is just a friendly reminder. Cheers, SVTCobra 23:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

File:David Pocock Greens sign.png
This fair-use image will be deleted soon as it is unused. Cheers, SVTCobra 14:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Writing contest 2023
Hello. We've created Writing contest 2023, which will start on February 1 and end on May 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 and 2013 contests. As a reviewer and accredited reporter who has recently been inactive, it would be a great time for you to rejoin. If you are interested in signing up, please do so at Writing contest 2023 and create a category for the articles you submit. Heavy Water (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi
Hi ,

I met you for the first time during my last bout of trying to get involved in Wikinews last summer, but lost touch when my efforts did not succeed. I remember being impressed with your attitude and ability, and am sorry see you stopped contributing. Is there any chance you may come back? It appears there are only two very active contributors left here.

Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Been really busy lately with a lot of stuff, so not sure if I'd be able to start contributing again, but I might be able to have a look at some articles in the review queue later today (even if I'm a bit rusty). Thanks for reaching out :) LivelyRatification (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I, for one, hope that you blanking your user page doesn't mean you are resigning from the project. I hope all is well. Cheers, SVTCobra 00:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not, just a decision I've made. Been very busy but would still like to review some articles if I have the time! LivelyRatification (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to let you know
Hi again ,

By a strange coincidence I found out that q:User:LivelyRatification2 was blocked on wikiquote in 2022 after vandalizing Cats, so I came here to alert you that someone may have it in for you, but I see that the same user has already vandalized your talkpage here too. I am not sure if you are concerned about vandalism on other wmf-wikiprojects, or whether anything can be done about something so stale.

just thought I would let you know. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

social media (cross-posted to all members of reviewer group)
Hi, Water_cooler/miscellaneous may be of interest to you as a reviewer, thanks and regards, Gryllida (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a review
Hello @LivelyRatification, I understand that it's been a while and you may be rusty, but I wanted to request a review of my first article World Athletics Indoor Championships concludes in Glasgow with new world records and significant wins. I would be happy to review one of your articles in the future as compensation if I ever become a reviewer. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Your lack of activity
Your last review as well as your last admin action was in July 2022 which is almost 2 years ago. According to WN:PEP users who do not use those permission for 2 years will have them removed. This is just a notice and I have not requested removal of your permissions. You will also be renotified at least once more before I make a request. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)