User talk:TheAwesomeHwyh

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: 540 million private Facebook records found on public Internet
Hi TheAwesomeHwyh :-)

Thanks for sharing this story. This is technically engaging; the timing of the report (i.e. how long the data was available publicly) is interesting to say the least.

Well done writing it up! I think these two incidents are separate and this could be clarified in the text.


 * What is Mexican company "Cultura Colectiva" ? I understand a Facebook connected app can store and leak private information, but the connection between the Mexican company and the leak is not very clear from the current revision of the articles.
 * From the source I think only the app data was leaked via Amazon S3 bucket. It is my understanding that the "Cultura Colectiva" leak was via another mechanism. Please correct me if this is wrong. If my understanding is correct then in the article this is not clear and it should be reworded, ie a) "The records from the app " can be added to the first paragraph; (b) In the second paragraph the first sentence can be separated into a separate para.
 * I would suggest to reword the first paragraph to say "On Wednesday, UpGuard reported that ... ' to avoid passive voice. (See style guide for details of the news language.)

I would be glad to help with any of this. Please just ask if you have any questions.

To reply please click here.

--Gryllida (talk) 02:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Gryllida,

I have addressed concern three, being the passive voice issue, and I am currently looking up information on how exactly Cultura Colectiva's data was leaked. The sources I have found haven't been clear on that either, so I will alert you when I figure that one out.

--TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like its unclear what app of theirs was the one that was leaked, so I just added a bit that explains that they "specialize in digital media". Is that a improvement? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks TheAwesomeHwyh!! It is better now. It is indeed not very clear from the sources. UpGuard reported this news and everyone else is potentially simply re-reporting them. I've emailed this question to UpGuard hoping they reply to me soon; if so, I will let you know. Gryllida (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * They've replied me back, saying that there were two separate Amazon S3 buckets. They said they do not know what third party app "Cultura Colectiva" were using. I've added the former clarification into the article briefly. Gryllida (talk) 09:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

540 million private Facebook records found on public Internet
Please see the article's talk page. --Bddpaux (talk) 13:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, the story has been published . I am sorry for under communicating about the inquiry and causing a delay with publication.
 * Congratulations on your first article, TheAwesomeHwyh.
 * Keep up the great work. :-) Gryllida (talk) 05:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh wow! I didn't realize it was published- this is great, yay! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am glad too :-)
 * Have an idea what to report next? What are your favourite news sources and topics, if you don't mind me asking? Gryllida (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea what the next thing I write will be- I found the past two things by looking into just random news sources and branching out from there. Whatever catches my interest, I guess. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Have an idea what to report next? What are your favourite news sources and topics, if you don't mind me asking? Gryllida (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No idea what the next thing I write will be- I found the past two things by looking into just random news sources and branching out from there. Whatever catches my interest, I guess. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration in practice
Welcome to Wikinews. Officially, this is a collaborative project, but the way things work in practice around here is that we give the person who writes the first draft of an article (that's you here and here) gets a much bigger role and a lot more say in the article than the first major contributor to a Wikipedia article would. Review is non-negotiable but during the development stage, we tend to defer to the initial drafter's wishes on how much collaboration they want. Technically no one has to ask your permission before adding content or making changes to articles that you started, but if you happen to prefer that people suggest changes on the talk page so you can make them (or not) rather than jumping in and making them themselves, we will respect that.

Short version: Are you more of a "Collaboration? Someone helping me do all the hard work? YAAAAAAY" Wikiperson or "Independence? People leaving my text alone until I think it's ready? YAAAAAAY" Wikiperson. Both are good! Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the welcome and the information! I'd probably describe myself as being probably in the middle of collaboration and independence, heh. Thank you! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll keep editing articles that you start as I like for now.  When you feel like something different, just say so.  I expect you'll figure out what you like best after a few rounds through review. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh. Thanks for pointing out the expectation that initial drafter is being given work to do by the means of talk page messages. I would like to take the opportunity to correct you:
 * Independent work means the initial author is expected to complete everything by their own. There is no interaction with a group or a team.
 * Leadering work means the initial author is expected to take the responsibility after the result, but they distribute some of the work by asking other volunteers to help with the tasks which they can not do themselves due to lack of skill. The interaction with a group or a team is maximized, and in being done, it is done efficiently.
 * I would suggest that the work at Wikinews is both collaborative and involves positioning the initial drafter in the leading role, but independence is not implied or intended. --Gryllida (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * As you can see, different people have different ideas. You'll see for yourself soon enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your idea is correct -- unlike Wikipedia, at Wikinews contributors are expected to learn writing a complete publishable article. I am only suggesting that despite this goal 'independence' is not wanted; collaboration and having a leading author is. Do you disagree with that? Gryllida (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * A little. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: Daimler says it has 'absolutely no idea how' Kim Jong Un got its limousines
A second source is required for verification. Do you have one?

Please just ask here, or at the talk page of the article, if you need any help. --Gryllida (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops, forgot to add it. I have this, ill add it now. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I made some edits and wrote some review comments. It's got a slightly different name (note the difference between Daimler having no idea (which ultimately we can't verify because we don't read minds) and Daimler saying they have no idea (which is subject to verification)). --Pi zero (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, in addition to Pi zero's comments, I don't think it is a good idea to say 'the controversial (name)' in article body as this is an opinion and we can only report facts.. Just ask if you need any help. I think it can be a good idea to specify the models of these cars in the article too, as the sources have them. Gryllida (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * i think the two sources are identical in content, they are one still not two? Gryllida (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Re US Department of Justice investigating Ford over emissions testing problems
A few things:


 * What is SEC? This would be nice to include in the first para.
 * In the third paragraph I'd change 'this comes' to 'this came'.
 * One of the sources says it is a criminal investigation, perhaps this information would be nice to include in the article to inform the reader that it is not a civil matter.
 * One of the sources says Ford started to look at its own emission practices by its own initiative, whereas the criminal investigation was started externally? I think this would be nice to clarify.
 * To me it is not clear how emission reduction and road load are related. Are these two matters connected? I think they are, and this may need to be indicated in the article more clearly.
 * The information "Ford voluntarily disclosed the issue to the Environmental Protection Agency on Feb. 18 and the California Air Resources Board on Feb 21." is in the second sources but without the dates. It would be nice to verify the dates in a third source, and include these dates into the article.

Please just ask here if you have any questions.

--Gryllida (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you still working on this? Gryllida (talk) 07:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've expanded it in the morning, and Pi zero reviewed it today evening (UTC). It is now published.
 * Please do check the history of changes -- it is recommended to go through them one by one -- and the review comments (by Pi zero). Gryllida (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do check the history of changes -- it is recommended to go through them one by one -- and the review comments (by Pi zero). Gryllida (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)