Hi Chandlerjoeyross, and Welcome to Wikinews!

Welcome to Wikinews! I hope you enjoy this free news source and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the free content news source...

Finding your way around:

Need Help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

  • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikinews' text editing window, also does this.

Good luck, and have fun.Legoktm - (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)}}Reply

Legoktm - (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Reply



Due to a recent change in guidelines, all articles must be reviewed by an independent user before publication. To ask for this review please tag your articles with {{review}}. I have reviewed your articles from today, this is just a note to ask you to follow this when writing article in the uture. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Where did you get the info for this article? The cited sources do not back up virtually any of the info in the article itself. Cirt (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

If that is the case that you got info from the Wikipedia article, you did not cite the Wikipedia article as a source. I went through the article and the secondary sources listed when I did the review and literally none of the sources listed corroborated with any of the info in the article - so were those secondary sources not used at all and the Wikipedia article was the only source? Even if the Wikipedia article were cited at that time, it really is best to rely more on other secondary sources instead. Cirt (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Article tags


please remember, when creating articles, to add {{develop}} or {{review}} to them so they can be found in the newsroom. If no tags are present, then the article can only be noticed in recent changes. If no one notices it, then it could be come orphaned and buried in Wikinews, only to be found much later. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please try to remember to add proper tags to articles you create/review/publish :-P DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Contributing Reporter Award

This award is presented to Wikinews reporters upon their 11th published news article.

Please note you shouldn't add yourself to the list of people with these awards until someone actually gives you it. Liked the Newman one, but keep looking at what changes get made after you've started an article to improve your wikinews-foo. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

File:R Venkataraman.jpg


Can you please add a source and a fair use rational for this image? Thanks :-} DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Heartbeat title card.jpg


This non-free image is claimed to be used under fair use but has no explanation on why it is permitted under our fair use policy. Non-free images are not permitted on Wikimedia Foundation projects without fair use rationales. Please supply a detailed rationale for each use of this image in all of the articles that it is used in, and remove this template when that has been done. Images without valid rationales are eligible for speedy deletion. --SVTCobra 22:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If you do not address these issues the image will be deleted. --SVTCobra 11:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Self publish


Due to policy changes at Wikinews articles should now never be self-published. All articles must be labelled {{review}} and independently reviewed. This is controlled by FlaggedRevisions and adding {{publish}} will not put an article on the front page. It is more likely to get lost if tagged as such without review. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

"Strange" quote mark characters


Please do not prepare stories off-wiki with an editor that uses non-standard quote characters. The acceptable quote characters are " and ' which should replace any quote marks such as those a word processor inserts. The recent obituary you submitted had this problem and was put up for review with attempted links to Wikipedia using these irregular quote marks. Wikipedia does not use them either so the wikilink gave an error when you clicked on it. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

James Pain (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

James Pain (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

James Pain (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

James Pain (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The image you stuck on Commons for this article has been deleted.

Can you sort this out ASAP? And, please figure out what has caused this problem. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)Reply



I've been operating under the misapprehension that a 'minuete' was either a dance, or a tower of the folly variety. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 18:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

-), Sorry. My Bad. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 18
20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do


Will do, thanks :) Wackywacedictaphone 18:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Labour Party announces Ed Miliband as new leader


Hi. I don't wanna cause an edit conflict, so can you move this to UK Labour Party announces Ed Miliband as new leader when you get a chance? There's a few Labour Parties around - Australia's another place with one. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Close paraphrase


I'm uneasy about the Slovenian cyclist obit on a number of levels. Key among those is how close your wording it to both sources. That being said, I suspect the chosen two are both derived from the same wire report - because they have the same issue as your copy has in relation to theirs. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Reply



I'm puzzled. It seems you're making odd modifications to a bunch of categories (odd to me, that is, hence my inquiry here). One I just noticed was removing the {{Countrycategory}} template, and thus the associated description, format, DPL, etc. from Category:Serbia and Montenegro. Generally (and including that one) these were introducing glitches into the category hierarchy, though certainly in some cases there were also pre-existing glitches to keep them company.

Why the changes? --Pi zero (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

It would speed up the reviewing time if you proofread/copyedited the article for a minute after finishing and complied with the style guide. While I feel generally confident about copyediting, I don't know much about wrestling, so it was a bit harder for me to go about identifying some things that needed to be fixed. fetch·comms 18:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and other than the story being stale (he died on 22 September), HuffPo isn't the most reliable source. Perhaps this would have worked out better? fetch·comms 18:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there! Your article Former Prime Minister of Russia Viktor Chernomyrdin dies aged 72 has become very old. You must take action to refresh it with new headlines and following the useful tips given by Brian McNeil at the article's talk page, which is also selected for the community's attention. If you don't the article may be deleted very quickly as it has become old. I hope you'll have my suggestions. Thanks,--Sainsf :) (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. Please think about expanding your article, Dominican comedian Freddy Beras-Goico dies aged 69, a couple of sentences by adding the points I have written on the talk page. Regards, — μ 19:07, November 18 2010 (UTC)

Fancy collaborating on this? wackywace 15:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yup, am watching on TV now. wackywace 15:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely no idea :-) You? wackywace 15:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Interesting... wackywace 15:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Cheers! Thanks for your invaluable help on the article—nice job finding the reaction from the countries which lost. Regards, wackywace 07:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas!

May your family have
a joyous holiday season
and a new year blessed
with hope and happiness.

fetch·comms 22:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply



Just to let you know, as this image was GFDL'd, you should have uploaded to Commons under the free licence, rather than to upload it locally under a restrictive copyright. (You also didn't comply with the GFDL licence, as you didn't attribute the author on the image page itself). I have reuploaded the image to Commons & deleted the local file in this instance; please do so yourself in future. Regards, — μ 19:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Great, thank you. I had a feeling I have done something wrong but was not sure. Will follow it correctly next time. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
You appear to have uploaded locally another file that should have been uploaded to commons: File:2LT Leonard Lomell.jpg. It's clearly tagged as "public domain", so it does not require attribution nor a fair use tag. Please upload such images to Commons, not locally, in future — I don't particularly like messing with the toolserver for things like this: please do it yourself in future. — μ 21:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply



Diego Grez return fire 23:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the edits! I had difficulty understanding the story, not being a footballer or from Guatemala! So I was confused. My apologies! Mattisse (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Decorated US soldier Leonard Lomell dies aged 91


Very nice article. Clear and concise! Mattisse (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Article renames


Please do not move articles after publication unless absolutely vital. Renaming published articles creates duplicate entries in Google News, on our Twitter feed etc. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I was unaware that they article had been published. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
No worries! :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this!


Blues musician Pinetop Perkins dies at age 97‎ - One of my favorites. I never would have known without your article. Mattisse (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Review notes


Please read the review notes of for this article Talk:At least fourteen dead after eating toxic fish in Madagascar, thanks. Gopher65talk 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help, will look a lot closer next time :) Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am soliciting your input please!


I am attempting a Dispute resolution at Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Brian McNeil and Mattisse and I am soliciting your input as to the problem. I urge you to give feedback. Soliciting input is the next step in the Dispute resolution process. Please do! Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Small favor to ask


Please do a quick copyedit on your articles before submitting them for review, which speeds up reviewing times. Most of the typos and errors in Man commits suicide by jumping from Burj Khalifa could have been corrected in ~15 seconds.

Just trying to help make reviewing faster :) fetch·comms 04:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please? Can't you even use Firefox or another browser with spellcheck? Or please, just proofread for thirty seconds. Please. fetch·comms 19:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, must apologies. I admitt that was my bad.. Was in a hurry. Will take more care and effort next time. Regards Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

A question


In Bahamas become forth country to ban shark fishing, don't you mean "fourth"? I didn't want to change it and cause an edit conflict with you. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

:) Yes I do mean fourth........ Thanks for that. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply



Wikinews now links to wikipedia using {{w|link}} rather than [[w:link|link]].--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Noted :) Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I left a comment on the article talk, about the Spanish sources. Not sure there's a way around the problem, though I note this difficulty with non-English sources is something we've done a fair amount of brainstorming on, over time. --Pi zero (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Polish footballer Włodzimierz Smolarek dies aged 54


Published. See review comments and history of edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Flagged Revisions

  • Please do not mark revisions of developing stories! You did so on the unpublished Azerbaijan obit and gave me a bit of a scare.
Checking/flagging revisions should be done via the EzPeerReview tool at publication, with edits following that being flagged if: spelling/grammatical, or within a 24-48 hr timeframe not pulling in sources after the article's publication date and checked/verified by someone independent of the actual contributing editor. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
24 hr timeframe, as we settled on that figure after noting we'd several different ones in different places. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 13:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Published. See detailed history of edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Request for reviewing and other assistance


Hi. Next week is the start of the IPC Alpine Skiing World Championships and two Wikinewies will be attending to cover the para-alpine skiing ahead of the 2014 Winter Paralympics . This is part of an effort outlined at Wikinews:IPC Alpine Ski World Championships. Immediately following this event, there will be a Meetup in Barcelona where Wikinews, the Paralympics and efforts to similar sport coverage will be discussed. At the moment, there are only two active reviewers on a daily basis. Demonstrating an ability to get reviews for these types of events done quickly is important for Wikinews credibility and gaining access to these types of events. I would really appreciate it if you could sign up on the IPC World Championship page to review, promote articles published during this period, assist in translating these articles into another language or attend the meetup in Barcelona. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?


We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. Unlike the previous version, points are available for people who conduct reviews. (With a University of Wollongong class currently contributing articles, extra assistance is appreciated at this time.) It presents a great incentive for you to renew your reviewing chops, contribute some original reporting not being done by the main stream media, and write some synthesis articles on topics that could use more attention. People should be around to review to prevent a backlog if you just want to write, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply



You currently have the Reviewer bit.....you still around these parts?? --Bddpaux (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

There's a fast-track process for restoring privs removed merely for inactivity. --Pi zero (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Busy elsewhere? We understand, but this is a notice of privilege expiry!

Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.

Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use. You can view your user rights log here.
Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

Hi. I struggled with this; after concluding the difficulty was beyond what I could do as an independent reviewer, I really tried to explain and offer guidance; see my review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Whoa there!


Under any other circumstances, I'd be delighted to see two, nearly three, articles getting pushed towards review by one person. However, it looks like we're going to be getting hit by the University of Southern Indiana at the same time as the University of Wollongong.

Can you do a little bit to help out with that? You've been around long-enough you're dramatically more-familiar with layout and the style guide than they are. Besides, they're typical students — they don't read the documentation until the second or third time they're pointed at it. Catching details like failing to use {{w}} links, lack of categories, mangled source templates, and anything else of that nature (with, importantly, edit summaries as to changes being made) is going to be a big help.

Plus, if you spot any absolute train-wreck submissions that lack sources altogether, or other 100% certain it'll never pass review issues, don't be afraid to put the article back to {{develop|See X, Y, Z in policy and style guide}}. As long as the main contributor also gets slightly-longer talk page feedback, plus a few of the aforementioned minor fixes, we can probably keep them busy looking for their own mistakes and fixing them. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll more than happily have a read through submitted articles and do the best I can to spot blatant errors. Hopefully this will speed up the system so it is easier for reviewers like yourself to get them published. Any errors I make please do point out and I'll try to get on board as fast as possible.
Thanks Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Great! This is going to be a challenge, I'm hoping we can play the two universities off against each-other once they've got a few articles published — have them doing the same where there will be no conflict of interest, as might exist were they working on/critiquing their classmates work. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nominated for review


I'm assuming you're happy to accept the nomination to be speedily re-granted the reviewer bit? If so, can you pop over and indicate such on the comments section of the nomination? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:04, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you accept the nom with a note at FRRFP, I'd be happy to provide the second support for fast-track re-granting. --Pi zero (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Hi, I will gladly accept the nomination. Please note that despite having privileges before I failed to review an article. Do we have a reviews guide I could look over before I review? I shall make a note accepting the nomination. Thank you and glad to be back as part of this great project. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Fwiw, there's WN:Tips on reviewing articles, which I created back when in an attempt to address the substantial absence of documentation on how to review. I suppose WN:PILLARS and WN:Newsworthiness are both more recent, and Tips might not have been updated to refer to them yet.
If you find yourself reviewing a student article, you'll want to be quite careful of things like passages copied and scuffed up, lack of a specific, fresh focus, failure to provide a succinct lede, and similar failures on basic elements of writing; the students are here to learn, after all. --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Definitely a case of "please give as-much feedback as-possible" with student contributions. The two profs who, currently, throw students at us do so because we're hard when it comes to review — moreso than they're likely to see in tutorials and such. Subs- and Copy-editors were amongst the first to go when the mainstream press started to feel the pinch. It's because we're old-fashioned and still do that, that we're considered a valuable resource for teaching.
If you've not heard of it, one of the best ways to get criticism taken onboard is called the — ahem — "shit sandwich". Say something complimentary, give your criticism, then something positive encouragement-wise. Don't be afraid to point them at the style guide, repeatedly. As typical students, they don't tend to read the instructions until nagged to do so. ;)
The above is working on the assumption we'll get another reviewer/admin to pop along, hopefully cast a third vote, and speedily close & promote. Your recent articles have been getting to need less, and less, touching pre-publication. Much of it what I've done has been a 'matter of personal taste', so you're definitely back into the right mindset to review. Far, far, too-many recent priv changes on-project have been to take away. It'll be good to see someone gain a bit, a well-earned bit I might add.
Are you considering looking at accreditation too? It can, as you'd see from my article today, "take you places". ;) --Brian McNeil / talk 00:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Actually, as the fast-track clause ended up written, I believe, after two days if we've got two reviewers in support and no opposition (and none expected), promote. It doesn't make things instantaneous, but it does hold them down to 48 hours without creating an opportunity for gratuitous procedural quibbling later. --Pi zero (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
With great discomfort on my part for the situation I've put you in, I plan to withdraw my support on your reviewer nom. I feel like we were pushing you to move too fast, and I don't want it to make you look bad. I'd really like this to somehow come out with the fasttrack-restoration option still open to you for some time in the future, though I'm unsure quite how to finesse that. --Pi zero (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Argh. Can't access WSJ source due to paywall. (I'd recommend avoiding WSJ and NYT nowadays, for this very reason.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah.. I was aware that the NYT was a pay for view service but not the WSJ.. Will avoid in future. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
I'm concerned that there were (in a few cases, are) a bunch of passages that were copied from source (and scuffed up a bit). I decided to try to fix them, at least well enough for publication, and then decide whether I'm still safe to review. Finding and fixing such problems is, after all, one of the things you would be responsible for if you reviewed an article — particularly a student article, as they often don't understand what they're supposed to not do. My advice? If you don't feel you're up to it yet, hold off on reviewing. --Pi zero (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
To be honest with you, this has been a concern of mine and the main reason why I have never chose to seek reviewer status. The Sierra Leone article wasn't a particularly great article of mine and wrongly, was hastily written. I am happy for you to make the call on whether you feel it would be suitable for me to take the reviewer status. I am more than happy to work on improving my article writing before taking the step of reviewing. Let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks as always. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Well, the review of that article kind of went down in flames; I agree the article was weak, but I contributed further to the problem by attempting to "fix" when I should have not-ready'd. It seems to me the chances of a good outcome for the article would have been better if I'd exercised better judgement, which perhaps says something interesting about the role of a reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • A perpetual learning exercise, methinks. As with any skill, you only improve with practice and pushing outside your comfort zone.
And, the most-important skill to develop is the ability to take criticism where it may not be well-framed.
RE: Paywalled news. There are ways round this sometimes; a few places will let you have the full article text if you've come to their site from Google News, or give you an option to 'subscribe' and get a handful of free articles per week or month. Even then, I wouldn't give them the linkage from Wikinews. The penalty for paywalling can, and should, be a drop in their Google ranking as well as us declining to point people at them who might go on to pay for their version of the story. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Category:UEFA Euro 2016


Reminder: we don't want to create a topic cat (under ordinary circumstances) until we already have three published articles about it. --Pi zero (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem, wasn't aware of that rule. In that case, are we able to have a Bath, England category? I believe there are at least 7 articles that warrant the use of it? Thanks Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 08:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
We could do that. There are lots of categories we could have but don't; the practical limitation on creating them is that when we create one, we should populate it immediately, and that's a lot of work. It used to be, there was little to no motive to get around to it, because the more categories we created, the easier it would be to miss some categories when creating a new article, and we'd probably forget to link the keywords locally anyway. The {{w}} template changed that (I love how such a simple device is so useful). {{w}} remembers to link locally so we don't have to, and lets out a squawk when a keyword wikilinked in an article has a local target. So that once that local target is created, sooner or later we'll look at each article that links locally to it, and consider specifically whether that article should be put into that category. Ever since the creation of {{w}}, we've escaped from forever forgetting to link things locally, and we've been slowly creating-and-populating missing categories. After several years of that, new articles have, statistically, a higher proportion of local links than they used to. --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)Reply


You need to work on your distance-from-source. I found long runs in there identical to source, and there's just no reason that should be happening. "Long" in this case means I think typically six or eight consecutive words; remember, the rule of thumb is there shouldn't be four consecutive words identical to source. The changes I make to fix such things (when I try) are, of course, less than optimal, because I'm limited by trying to maintain my independence for review. Best would be not just to say the same thing in a radically different way, but to redistribute the information completely. In really well-homogenized synthesis, a given synthesis sentence may have bits of information taken from distant parts of the sources, perhaps from different sources; and information from a given source sentence may end up in relatively distant parts of the synthesis. (I've long wanted to write an essay that could somehow demonstrate this sort of homogenized synthesis, giving writers a taste of what I've seen by reviewing such quality synthesis; but presenting it effectively is a challenge. I started such an essay several years ago under the imho rather catchy title "How to use sources without plagiary", but the technical problems dragged it down and I ended up working on my dialog tools instead, which may or may not eventually help with that technical problem.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Italian parliament vote to back same-sex civil unions


Hi. Something went awry here. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I believe I have amended the issues. If not please do inform. Thanks. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 07:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re: British sexual assualt campaigner Jill Saward dies aged 51


Hello Chandlerjoeyross,

Please check review comments.

--Gryllida 22:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi again,

Please check the new review comments.
I've identified extra tasks to work on. A next review could perhaps have to do with verification, and may take more time to carry out.
Please keep up the good work.
--Gryllida 00:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Alas, it does not look like you've edited the article since, and not fresh anymore. Unless there are fresh details on this article, allowing for a re-focus, I kindly look forward to your work on a next article. --Svetlana Tkachenko / Gryllida (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Translated your article


into Dutch n:nl:Trump stuurt woordvoerder Witte Huis na amper 10 dagen de laan uit --Livenws (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@LIVE NIEUWS: Did you check the article for freedom from copyvio, for accuracy, and for neutrality before publishing it on nl.wn? I'm guessing the answer is "no", but I don't know for sure, which is why I'm asking. --Pi zero (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Pi zero 1. Accurancy, yes, I've checked it with the orginal article from The New Yorker. (See sources at Wn.nl article) 2. Neutrality; quick check, seems good 3. Copyvio, not checked, that will take to much time because I'm not native English speaker (average knowledge). It is a challenge for EN.Wikinews to clarify as quickly as possible if there is copyvio. By translating, the sentences are often put into their own words, so that reduces chance on copyvio. The article is also written by a long term user, so the chance is low on copyvio. If it was an anonymous writer, I would pay more attention. 4. Spelling and language corrections in Dutch language were done by an other user. 5. If you find a problem, you may always report me. --Livenws (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
@LIVE NIEUWS: Glad to hear of your checking.

Translation adds copyright restrictions, rather than reducing them. That is, speaking of translation in general, a translation is under all the copyright restrictions of the original plus whatever additional restrictions may be imposed by the translator. Although usually, as a reviewer, if I'm able to address copyright concerns during review I do it with a minimal change to the text, that's not an ideal way to do it: I'm limited to minimal tactics because I'm required to be an independent reviewer, so if I get too involved in the article I would have to disqualify myself from publishing it. In this case, I don't see that we're adding any additional copyright restrictions in the translation; and nl.wn cites en.wn so there's no problem with conditions imposed by en.wn (although it seems risky for the nl.wn version to omit the sources used by the English version, since until-and-unless en.wn publishes there's no assurance the English version will continue to be available indefinitely). However, I wouldn't suppose that we're mitigating any unfortunate problems that might have arisen; and omitting copyright check on grounds that it's too difficult — though I understand that it is, in fact, more difficult for a non-native English speaker — does not seem appropriate; nor does it seem reasonable to blame en.wn for nl.wn's possible transgressions; the en.wn article is clearly marked as not yet reviewed, so we're not the ones making a strong claim of suitability-for-distribution about the article.

@Chandlerjoeyross: Apologies for this side-discussion on your talk page. I really do hope to get to your article next, after the one I'm working on now. --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Pi zero: Not an issue at all. Thank you. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Pi zero A news site should be able to share news quickly. I see that other projects also take over our articles with the same principle in mind. I see here that the article is in review for a day without complaints about copyvio. Now, I have checked copyvio with the detector, only copyvio are quotes from what the person literally said, but that's allowed on NL Wikinews. I think also here? --Livenws (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply
@LIVE NIEUWS: If it's not vetted before publication, it's not news. That does not mean every Wikinews has to go about things the way en.wn does, although I do maintain that if they could afford it they would do well do adopt something similar. There are various historical reasons why we have been able, with great difficulty, to achieve the level of review we maintain here. (I do, btw, have a long-term plan to address the technical difficulty involved, and I hope it will not only greatly increase what we can do here but also bring something like our approach within range for other Wikinewses; but that's for the future.)

Btw, I never use the tool you mention; it offers only a mechanized summary assessment, whereas imho the point of all the wikis is the human element. I do use toollabs:dupdet to inform a preliminary check for similarities — but I study the output from dupdet carefully, often finding problems that are only hinted at by the tool, using my human understanding of the text (something that no tool can duplicate); and I often find problem passages later on, that dupdet didn't even hint at.

No, there isn't anything at all you can conclude about an article from the fact that it has been waiting on the review queue for some time without being rejected. However, this particular article has now been published; you can see what edits I made during review. --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Former Governor of Texas Mark White dies aged 77


Published. Sorry, it's too late, else I would have left a message explaining things -- well remember to spell out small numbers (< 20) and please attribute (see wn:attribute)
acagastya PING ME! 20:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for adding the category


Welcome back, Chandlerjoeyross.  

I remember we discussed the Jill Saward's obituary last year.

Thanks for adding the category 'Micronesia' to this story. Another category, 'Federated States of Micronesia', has also been added. I really appreciate this change (as far as I know, I am undercategorizing my articles regularly, and any improvements and suggestions are incredibly helpful.)

I am trying to understand a few things about how people choose what news to read, and what is their technical expertise.

  • Do you program -- if so, in what languages?
  • What web browser do you use? Do you have Firefox?
  • How do you choose what news sources to read?
  • What program -- on a desktop or on a mobile -- do you use to read news?

Please answer as many or as few of those as you are comfortable with, at your convenience.

Again welcome back. I am glad to see you here again. --Gryllida chat / how do YOU get started? 00:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The lede needs some cleanup; review comments. Haven't seen you around in a while; welcome back. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks, I think I have cleaned up some of the issues. I see the concern about the speculation, hopefully more comes out in the next few hours I can add before the article gets stale. I have submitted for re-review in the mean time if it meets the criteria. Thanks, I have been trying to get back for a while and no time like an international pandemic to do so. Chandlerjoeyross (talk)



Hi Chandlerjoeyross

Interesting read about the face coverings on public transport in England. Thank you!

Also just checking if you would be interested in copy-editing other submissions; there is a notifications tool for this, here.

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply



Hi, Chandlerjoeyross! Just wanted to stop by and thank you for writing the articles these days!
•–• 19:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply