Welcome to Wikinews

A nice cup of coffee for you while you get started

Getting started as a contributor
How to write an article
  1. Pick something current?
  2. Use two independent sources?
  3. Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start.
  4. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs.
  5. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask?

  • Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template.
    [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

 Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally.
As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems.

Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation
  Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.
All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours.

Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere.

The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing.

Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.

The core policies
Places to go, people to meet

Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion.

There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.

Find help and get involved
Write your first article for Wikinews!

Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it!



It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.


-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Prime Minister of Slovakia Igor Matovič tests positive for COVID-19Edit

Published. Congrats! Please see (as ever) the review comments and detailed history of edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  The Order of the Modest Pencil


For getting your first article published!

Great work! Keep it up!--•–• 05:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

feedbackEdit

World Trade Organization declares US tariff hike illegal, rules in South Korea's favourEdit

Published. --Pi zero (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Reordering sourcesEdit

Thanks for reordering the sources, but would you mind explaining how you decide how to order them, because I'm not quite sure. Thanks :) --IWI (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ImprovedWikiImprovment: I don't know which edit you are referring to, but we list sources based on the ddate of publication: from newest to oldest.
•–• 16:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovement: Indeed. The relevant guideline would be at WN:SG#Sources section. --Pi zero (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@ImprovedWikiImprovement: Apologies for not responding, but yes, sources are from newest to oldest. The sources here were originally 28 Jan, then 30 Jan. I reordered from 30 Jan to 28. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Dylan. --IWI (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Anytime, IWI :) --Dylan Smithson (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

UK government opens visa pathway for Hong Kong residents to naturaliseEdit

Hi. I had some difficulty with distance-from-source on this. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

International Criminal Court rules its jurisdiction reaches Palestine, opens the door to probes against IsraelEdit

Yes, please do change the headline as well; it'd be helpful, even if further tweaking is called for. --Pi zero (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dylan Smithson (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Published (as "International Criminal Court rules its jurisdiction includes Palestine"). --Pi zero (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Appreciated :) --Dylan Smithson (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
For perspective: What I couldn't find, specifically, was the current status of US ratification. (Just to make it more imaginable: this was coming right down to the wire for the article, at the end of a rather long day for me.) Your specific descriptions of where to find things — an entirely appropriate measure, thx — although they didn't cover that exact point, gave me a more confident sense of where you were coming from, and, now that the immediate time pressure was off, I tried again to find implicit forms of the needed information in the recent sources. I decided it was implied by some remarks in the AP article (and I subsequently double-checked in what I believe was the official list of signatories and ratifiers). --Pi zero (talk) 02:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I completely understand, your job must be a nightmare given all the vandalism, dead articles, and ridiculous redirects this place gets every day, let alone this "real life" thing. Don't worry, I should've made things more clear anyway. Thanks for all the good work you and every moderator here does, your work does not go unappreciated. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Greek lawmakers approve campus police in spite of student protestEdit

Hi Dylan Smithson

Interesting story. Thank you! A few comments that may help you with completing the draft:

  • What university would the new laws allow police to be created in? Any university in particular or any?
  • The same question about what university was protecting (or if multiple, specify which).
  • Answer to 'why' is not clear in the first paragraph. Protests reason is specified, but support isn't. (It is specified later in the text, but I would suggest to include it into the first paragraph.)
  • Wikilinks are missing but I presume that you already know this and plan to add them at a later stage.

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida, thanks for responding! I have a plan to add those points in, I stopped for now because of time constraints and will continue later. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Published (looks like you changed the headline a while back). Some remarks on the article talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Under reviewEdit

The article is marked {{under review}}; as the template says, please do not edit the article itself; if you feel a change should be made, propose it on the article's talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry.--Dylan Smithson (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Newbie mistake, we all make :D. Many a times, reviewers are looking at the recent changes, but editing while the article is under review may lead to significant effort getting wasted. Don't worry about it, just keep in mind not to edit when the article is under review. If there is something urgent, put it on the talk page. Reviewers are required to read the talk page before publishing, and best if you detail what the issue is and what needs to be done. (You can also join WN:IRC, and talk with the reviewer in real-time -- if you would like to join irc, and don't know how, let me know and I will help you).
•–• 04:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

DeletionEdit

Heh. I gather I'd speedied the article before you finished posting an RFD? Well, the thought is appreciated anyway.

I gather that before the age of review (say, 2008 or earlier), RFD was quite an active place. Nowadays, I think, the abandonment process picks up most of them; but just lately I've started to feel that when something really doesn't meet our standards, it needs to be taken down in minutes or hours rather than waiting the week-or-so that abandonment takes. So I've gotten more aggressive about speedy-deleting stuff that either would use us as an advertising platform, or would spread potentially harmful misinformation. --Pi zero (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I did haha, sorry. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Just in case you think a page qualifies for speedy delete, tag it with {{speedy|reason keyword}} instead of WN:DR. WN:DR should generally be used for those pages where we are not quite sure if it should be kept or not.
•–• 07:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
My apologies. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Seven Russians infected with H5N8 bird flu; first cases reported in humansEdit

I've asked for sharper focus. --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have rectified the problems specified. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Re Pi's obitEdit

Hi, Dylan Smithson. I appreciate you helping with the article. But please note, the caption was what pi had written in the email, a few years back, when he had emailed me, and re Christmas, that was a quote, and when he said it, he did not capitalise the first letter.
•–• 16:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not realise. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Future collabEdit

I have just noticed German public broadcaster Deutsche Welle resumes Hungarian-language content, received coldly by government in the recent changes - if you want to work on Hungary-related topics in the future, please reach out, I might be able to help. - Xbspiro (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

NotificationsEdit

Hi Dylan

Thought you might be interested in receiving notifications when a new draft is created, or submitted for review? I can help with delivering these notifications to your personal talk page, or to your e-mail. You can also choose which topics to read if you don't want to get everything. Then after receiving such a notification you can copy/edit the article or leave feedback, which would be of gold value to the article author(s). The author(s) will be eternally grateful to you, and will remember your assistance for all time.

Please see User:Gryllida/welcome a bit for information about how to sign up.

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

HelloEdit

Just a side note that live chat via IRC is available to help contibutors talk, both about news being written and about news they've spotted elsewhere. Perhaps, if you might wish to join it and stay on the chat for a few days, you might meet a few new people. Might help with staying connected with those who are still around. -Gryllida (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind offer. As someone born after Wikipedia itself, however, I genuinely have no idea how to use IRC. I would if I was able, believe me.   --Dylan Smithson (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
We ought to make a video about 'how to use IRC' so others don't face this problem.
•–• 02:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Re the most recent articleEdit

Hey, Dylan Smithson. I don't mean to say I am disappointed in you. But since I can't fix something without becoming involved reviewer, and there isn't a reviewer ready to quickly approve the fix, that indeed becomes a barrier. I hope you don't take in the wrong way.
•–• 14:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I completely understand. Looking back, I really don't believe it was the best I could have done, but of course it went "under review" rather quickly. Thanks for your continued patience throughout. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
If you do have changes, please mention it onn talk page -- reviewers can't publish something unless they read the talk page.
•–• 14:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 15:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Thanks for tagging articles as abandoned. It is an important part of the Wikinews workflow. Just in case you were not aware, it is best to use {{subst:aband}} because it automatically adds the date. Cheers. -Green Giant (talk) 08:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbComEdit

Hi, Dylan Smithson -- just a head's up, ArbCom only takes cases when all ways of Dispute resolution have failed.
•–• 13:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware, however: (1). I have provided edit summaries concluding my frustration. (2). The user does not have a talk page. I don't know how effective (3) would be, but I'll try that now. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Dispute ResolutionEdit

{{helpme}} Please help me resolve the issue with user 2600:6C46:4400:18:58B5:1073:B95C:3BA4, who has created an inordinate number of articles in the past either blatantly violating copyright or containing a bare minimum of information, and consequently spamming many's talk pages with eventually-deleted notices, spamming the "recent changes" and spamming the production queue on Wikinews as a whole. Dylan Smithson (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

This is not unexpected. Thank you for your continued efforts as regards these draft articles, please don’t worry too much about them but you can use the various deletion tags - {{aband}}, {{copyvio}}, {{minimal}} etc. If this anonymous IP is who I suspect it is, they will soon be blocked from further editing. --Green Giant (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I intend to. However, this is if nothing else a serious nuisance. Categories, "recent changes" and all the talk pages subscribed to recent edits are being filled up with objectively subpar excuses for articles, most of which are only one or two unpunctuated sentences of whatever this man in Minnesota felt was important that day...or read on CNN. --Dylan Smithson (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I'm also curious whether this person is in cohorts with any of the other anonymised IP address-only users who have submitted "articles" here in the past few days. Is this normal? --Dylan Smithson (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Well it’s not normal in the sense of how most people interact here. There always have been and always will be a few people on the wikis who are incapable of listening to others. In contrast take yourself for example. When I pointed something out to you (previous section), your response was to acknowledge it and change your approach. That is normal behaviour. Anyway I have requested the stewards to have a look and see if the registered user and the IPs are linked. Technically, I can do this myself but it is considered inappropriate because I have not been elected to the relevant role on this wiki. Anyway, if the result is confirmed, I or another administrator will block them from further editing. I don’t want you to become too worried about this but it is nice to see serious volunteering like this. 😊 --Green Giant (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Green Giant: if you withdraw the request and then I add it -- does that mean you can open the investigation as a steward?
•–• 18:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I wish it was that simple. No, the issue is that stewards are not supposed to use checkuser on wikis where they have heavy involvement e.g. adminship unless they are elected as a checkuser on that wiki. Unfortunately, WN does not seem to have sufficient active editors to elect two checkusers (which is the minimum allowed). - Green Giant (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Could we please perhaps try to do that? Gryllida (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
@Gryllida: Certainly we can give it a try. I would suggest continuing this conversation at a more appropriate location such as Wikinews talk:Requests for permissions? -Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Added the question there. Thanks Green Giant! Gryllida (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks everyone, sounds good to me. I'll remove the helpme request once this matter is all resolved with, but thanks in advance   --Dylan Smithson (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

User 204.169.30.2 has recently published an "article" with elements very characteristic (similar titles, copyright violations etc) of 2600:6C46:4400:18:58B5:1073:B95C:3BA4, which leads me to believe they are the same person editing on different accounts/IP addresses. Any updates on your ends? --Dylan Smithson (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
If no more articles of the same style are made in the next few days, I'll take this help request down. Glad to be on such a helpful Wikimedia project, you're all appreciated!   --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Articles deleted and user blocked. -Green Giant (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Lovely. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

en.wikivoyage block?Edit

According to Special:CentralAuth/JJLiu112 you've been indefinitely blocked at en.wikivoyage with reason Intimidating behaviour/harassment, but the block log does not mention anything. Am I missing something? Leaderboard (talk) 08:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my friend got on my account a few years ago and messed with someone's talk page there, I believe. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Leaderboard, the reason you aren't seeing any block log entries is that Wikivoyage staff tend to redact the details of blocks, as Wikivoyage tends to be stricter than Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc. when it comes to "deny(ing) recognition." I just checked the public logs by selecting July 31, 2019 and viewing log entries from that date and earlier and I saw lots of log deletions with the edit summary "WV: Deny recognition." 173.76.131.225 (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping@Leaderboard:.
•–• 06:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome a bitEdit

Hi JJLiu112 Would you be interested in receiving, either via wiki talk page or via email, notifications of newly created articles? I can either notify you of new drafts (preferred), or new stories submitted for review. The software for this is called 'welcome a bit', as after receiving the notification, you can "welcome" the article a bit by providing the author some immediate feedback, either as a message or an edit. For details and signup instructions, please check this page. Thanks! --Gryllida (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind offer, but not at the moment. Assuming this unfortunate trend persists, now vandalism would infect both “recent changes” and my bloody inbox. JJLiu112 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. These notifications are only for categories, i.e., articles tagged with {{developing}} and the like. Is this common in the spam? Gryllida (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes. Sorry. --JJLiu112 (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: New York to legalise marijuana for recreational useEdit

Hi JJLiu112

Not my strong topic area. A few questions.

  • Who is the deal with? There maybe are either one or two sides in it. The first two paragraphs enlighten me that is was discussed at " State Assembly". How many people are in that assembly?
  • The third paragraph says how it would be regulated. It would be nice to know the background: how is it regulated in other states?
  • "The bill may be put to vote as early as next week according to the New York Times." -- who will vote about it? All citizens, or another assembly or something?

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your concerns. I will answer them here, and then address them in the article itself. Keep in mind marijuana is not my area of expertise any more than Palestine or the Serbian Orthodox Church.
  • There are two houses in the New York legislature: think Australian Senate for New York State Senate and House of Representatives for the State Assembly. State representation itself is not dissimilar from the Legislative Assembly of Queensland: both have powers and jurisdiction over the local state while not superseding federal law. Because the Democratic Party controls wide majorities in both houses (State Assembly 105/150 with 1 Democrat-leaning independent and Senate 43/63) and have for a while (State Assembly since 1975, Senate since 1964), deals can be made and passed by members of those parties alone. In this instance, according to the New York Times, Majority Leader of the Assembly (Democrat) Crystal Peoples-Stokes and Chair of the Senate Finance Committee have written up a deal and got it approved by the Governor. Therefore, it'll certainly pass.
  • Regulations vary in states where it's legalised: Arizona allows adults up to five grams of marijuana concentrate, California eight.
  • Both the Assembly and Senate still must vote (even though essentially a shoe-in).

--JJLiu112 (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I have used your comments to tweak the article. I hope it is to your liking! --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Head's up (re emails)Edit

Reporters, who have been involved with news writing and for the benefit of the project -- it is okay for them to provide their genuine email id. Intention matters.  :)
•–• 02:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, understood. Regarding the phone transcripts (while I've reeled you in here) on Wikinews interviews candidates for the 2021 Texas 6th congressional district special election, will I be required to write them out in their entirety on the talk page or not? --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Replied at the article's talk. If if could come join IRC, that would be helpful.
•–• 02:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I've been here for three hours --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
It was my bedtime, when you came by, JJLiu. Running `timebot acagastya` on Wikinews IRC channels will show you my time. Well, things that I would need to start the review is brief explanation of how you were able to reach to the candidates, and conduct the interview. I would need some form of method to check the email addresses (emails you forwarded) correspond to the person it claims to be. And the most important of all -- we need the audio to be transcribed for the purpose of reviewing. See Iranian International Master Dorsa Derakhshani discusses her chess career with Wikinews for how the audio file was transcribed. Once you do that, then I can review it. If you have not transcribed it yet -- here is the trick. Convert the audio files to video files, upload it on YouTube, set language to English and in a few hours, YouTube will auto-transcribe it. You can copy from there, and then listen to the audio, and fix the mistakes if there are any. Once done, the article can be submitted for review.
•–• 05:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm very sorry if I came off passive-aggressive, thanks though. Regarding each point, (1) I will include that, thank you. (2) I have e-mailed them to scoop, but their web sites list their e-mails in the contact bit. Here for Mr Mizher, and here for Mr Eddings. (3) I'm currently transcribing it by hand, because I think it'll be the most accurate (and I'm too stupid to understand the Internet). I'll submit it when I'm done, thank you and sorry. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

YT transcriptsEdit

Hi, if you haven't started transcribing the second interview, the youtube speech-to-text transcripts are: 1, 2 and 3. You would still have to copy-edit.
•–• 13:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

In school at the moment (09:12am), but thank you very much! --JJLiu112 (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Also, please see the timestamps in comments for Wikinews interviews Adrian Mizher, independent candidate for Texas' 6th congressional district special election, how that might come helpful!
•–• 14:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I can see that! I'll work on it once done with work (exams are coming up, I need to revise for them & fill out some forms, go to post office etc). Busy day today, might only get to it around your 08:00 tomorrow. --JJLiu112 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

NOEdit

THIRTY MINUTES OF EDITING WAS LOST I HATE MY LIFE --JJLiu112 (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I realise this is wholly inappropriate but oh my god i was trying to hard to just edit this thing at 2 in the morning, and it's all gone except for a few minutes. I can't believe it. What is there to say, even? I try my best and this is what happens. --JJLiu112 (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Always save every 5-10 minutes, @JJLui112:. Are you using the YouTube method, or are you doing by hand? Their speech-to-text is quite helpful. Also, please add time stamps, that will be really helpful! See Wikinews discusses DRM and DMCA with Richard Stallman after GitHub re-enables public access to youtube-dl for example.
•–• 07:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping@JJLiu112:
Doing it by hand. Where to add time stamps? --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
maybe after each answer.
•–• 05:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Damn it, I'll do that afterwards. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@JJLiu112: hey, might joining IRC for some time?
•–• 17:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sure. --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: Need to talk. Urgently, if possible within the next 30 minutes (about to sleep so). Any chance you could come online?
•–• 18:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. What is it? Is it detrimental to the article? --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping@Acagastya: --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Best to keep it on your talk -- I had to hide multiple revisions and request temporary deletion of the audio interview (it will be restored in a few hours). I/w asked some one statement not to be printed, and it was on-wiki.  :/ Please avoid that, because the fix is messy.
•–• 18:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe it was a joke, friend...I could follow up? --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This reaction seems excessive. He agreed to be recorded, even asked afterwards (around the call's end) when this would be out. He has clearly made a few wisecracks during the interview, and besides it makes no sense why he would speak to a member of the press, under the full and complete impression I am endeavouring to write and record this article composed of everything he's saying, in one sentence with zero follow up or indication of his seriousness, that I should just omit a sentence entirely. It's not as if he doesn't acknowledge I'm a member of the press (remember when he apologised for 'disparaging us?'), it was almost certainly a joke on his part received as intended by me. --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Not only do I believe the audio file should not have been deleted, considering our reputation is already under fire enough as an open-to-the-public news web site affiliated with its own questionably-reliable sister project, it is genuine evidence the call took place, words were written as said, and none of us are slandering a political figure with very complex, nuanced and controversial opinions running in a current election. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
If someone asks not to print something, we should at the very least consider the implications. I can never know for certain if it was a joke or not. In UK, a photo of a politician eating a sandwich was enough to end his campaign, so best if you clarify. If you can promptly get it clarified, (please make sure you do provide a proof, if it was indeed a joke), that would be wonderful! Else, I would have to spend some time rewriting the history. (and now, it is my turn! NO! I lost over an hour and previous revision history because I didn't have initial read through before editing!) Part of the learning process is to make mistakes. BUT if it turns out it wasn't a joke, could you please be available at time so we can rewrite the history?
•–• 19:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
sigh. fine. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC) E-mail sent, now we wait. I desperately hope this was nothing more than a joke... --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

To quote WN:OR:
As a general legal principle, everything a source tells you before you've identified yourself is "off the record" and cannot be published unless you get them to repeat it for you later. Similarly, if a source tells you anything is "off the record", do not print it. On the other hand, people will often allow you to speak to them for "background material", where they do not wish to be identified in your article — but may still provide you with information nonetheless. Sometimes they will allow this information to be credited to "a police officer on the scene said that...", other times they will demand no reference in the article. Respect their wishes.
It is a case of sticking with the ethics. Given they had wise-cracks, if someone says "please don't do X", especially when they know you are recording and will re-listen to their wishes, I don't think, ideally speaking, they need to repeat the request. If you are interviewing someone and they say "don't print it", instead of thinking they could be joking, it should be our duty as journalists to request clarification about the situation. This has happened in the past, where the interviewee did not want her name to be published. We sent the unedited copy to the reviewer, and an edited version without identifyable names was made public.
•–• 19:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I know this has been unpleasant bump in the road, and I am sorry if I come out aggressive, I am not. I am only looking for effective and good solutions which can be put to effect quickly. And I request you to please make that Yt video private instead of unlisted on a priority basis. At least until we know this was a joke.
•–• 19:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! It has been clarified as a joke! I have forwarded the email to you. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@acagastya JJLiu112 (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes?Edit

I realise you're asleep, but when you're awake @Acagastya: the person's sent me an e-mail clarifying it was a joke. I've forwarded it to your wn-reporters.org account and your Outlook. You can revert everything. --JJLiu112 (talk) 23:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Undeleted the audio file and the revisions. Will be publishing in a few hours (not minutes, sorry, for the time lost last night, I am still not in the best shape for early review).
•–• 02:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
No problem, friend. Do take all the time you need! --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

An award for you!Edit

 
I hereby give J.J.Liu the OR barnstar for his wonderful interview with independent candidate from Texas. Every aspect of the interview, from the recordings, to question, the style, voice and tone: it was great! It was an absolute pleasure to review it! JJ is a natural! And it was quite informative! While I don't agree in parts with the interviewee (no two people have exact thought process any way), I find the content rich, and it is a worthy addition to our collection!
•–• 18:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

OH WOW, I do not deserve that haha, thank you so much! --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You know, you have the longest published article in the modern times, JJ! One hell of an article! Now, as Faith asked you to forward the article once published -- you can! And cheers for that achievement -- you can have this barn star once again for this feat!
•–• 17:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks! You're spoiling me...anyways, can I be bureaucrat tomorrow?   --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't have the 'crat rights before assigning you. Though we are supposed to open 'crat RfP for @Green Giant: if he is interested.
103.48.106.85 (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
'Twas a joke, and regardless I'm not ready for that kind of responsibility. Give it a year? --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Acagastya: I don’t know about being supposed to have a bureaucrat RFP for me but I think we probably do need a second bureaucrat and definitely two checkusers. I presume we will get round to it soon. --Green Giant (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
JJLiu112, congratulations on the award. You’d have to be selected as an administrator. I’d think about a year of regular contributions, especially in the areas that admins have tools for. Then at least a year before nomination for bureaucrat. --Green Giant (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It was a joke, both of you. I'm not that much of a narcissist. --JJLiu112 (talk) 22:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
not to forget at least three-four years of service as a reviewer before that.
•–• 05:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Media and archival policyEdit

Hi. You must be aware of our policy, news articles are a snapshot in time, and we cannot make substantial changes agter 24 hours since publication. Adding media is one such change. Media greatly helps the audience. In this case, where there was not a single media file, either I need to wait for someone to add, or I have to add it, hoping someone else sights the edits. This is undesirable. (I will spare the rant of me having to spend two hours from my sleeping time adding images from phone, since that isn't convincing.) The problem of waiting for someone else to sight it, is if there is a blunder in the article, or a new piece of information must be added to the article on a priority basis, that can not be sighted unless older revisions are sighted; which I can't. Such situations where a reviewer is handicapped is undesirable. So please consider adding media, and any such occurances where the reviewer is now involved in substantial changes.
•–• 20:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Understood. --JJLiu112 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Link on your userpageEdit

Hi, I noticed a link on your userpage to w:WP:NOR. You should know, the definition of OR on enwp and enwn are not the same, and on the contrary, quite opposite. It could be misleading to people referring to your userpage. Please consider using WN:SYNTH, for that purpose.
•–• 04:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Rectified. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Local linksEdit

Hi. There is a gadget in the Preferences panel called "Underline in green categorizable {{w}} links" which can give you a visual reference of when links like Iran can be converted to Iran. If possible, please try using hard links. Cheers!
•–• 06:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok! JJLiu112 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:France Prime Minister announces suspension of all flights to, from Brazil over coronavirus variant concernsEdit

Sorry for the rollback of your edit. A slip of the finger. -Green Giant (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm sure you meant to thank me and award me and grant me bureaucratship ;) --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Pretty sure the button to grant 'crat rights is not there :P. Btw, @Green Giant: there is a script w:User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback.js which asks for a confirmation before you rollback -- I have been using it for quite some time -- maybe you will find it useful too. Also, thanks for sighting the edit!
•–• 04:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Dispute ResolutionEdit

{{helpme}}

User:SATURDAYmister seems to be neither willing to write an actual article on Wikinews following the Style/Content guide, nor cooperative with polite notification. Please help me resolve this matter. --JJLiu112 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This happened while I was afk. I think either the user stopped reading the warnings, or they went afk. Regardless, a final warning has been issued, and if they still continue this, then a block would be necessary.
•–• 03:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

NoteEdit

Just so you know, generally users are allowed to remove notices and messages from their own user talk page. It is taken as an acknowledgment they have read and understood the message. --IWI (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Judging from the context I don't think this was done in any good faith. --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of the intention of the action, they are welcome to do so. If they choose to ignore the warning and continue the disruption, they are free to do that but will likely have a block placed on their account. --IWI (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
JJ, we have a policy of wn:never assume, and IWI, messages of administrative importance should generally be preserved.
•–• 03:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Sigh, alright. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
note, never assume implies both -- don't assume good faith and don't assume bad faith, look at the things that are objectively verifiable and see how it affects the project and what the policy says.
•–• 03:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean Acagastya. There is no obligation for a user to keep a notice on their page once they have read it; they are not "badges of shame" (see the reasoning at w:WP:REMOVED). Any previous notices can be seen in the edit history. If they choose to ignore the warning (as that user did), then they will have a block applied to their account (as you have done). --IWI (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
There is. For instance, a user that has been warned before can be blocked faster than one that hasn't. Archiving the (warning) notice would make determining whether to block a user harder. Leaderboard (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
It's all easily reviewable in the edit history. See the link above, there is no obligation for them to keep it on their talk page, and really reverting them only tends to lead to more anger and then more disruption. The only purpose of a warning is to warn, not to serve as a talk page badge of shame. --IWI (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The point is kind of moot now that the user is blocked, but in future you shouldn’t revert someone removing a message from their own talk page. It is taken as an acknowledgment and understanding. --IWI (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
AN UPPERCASE RAGE summary is hardly an indication of understanding, and more of a "fuck odd from my page, idc". Admins here generally don't have to warn users. And when they do, they usually end up getting blocked because of their behaviour. Removal of admin-related notifications make it easier for other admin to miss. Going through the history wastes more time, and on a news wiki, we are in a race against time. Anyone who is here for the purpose of contributing to the project would have said "yeah, sorry, won't do it", instead of going hysterical. If they leave the message as is, and contribute, it is very likely they will receive newcomers award from a reviewer further showing old warnings are no longer relevant.
117.198.178.142 (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll stay out of this one... --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not commenting on the intention of the action, that's not something I can assume. Removing a comment from your own talk page is allowed, and there is really no basis to restore it. If they have removed it, it means they have read it and then acknowledged it by removing it, and this is regardless of the intention of the action. Ideally yes they would have removed it with an edit summary like "ok" or "won't do it again", but this isn't a requirement. Warnings are not "badges of shame", they are what they are used to simply provide advice to the user. --IWI (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
And also for the admins. If an admin has notified someone of a serious problem, and looking at the past experience, if you have pissed off admin that you get a warning, you are already likely to be blocked, because we leave a note for absolutely those oddballs who are here to trouble.
117.198.178.142 (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Noted. I'm not very used to Wikimedia etiquette, given some of these articles have been around since before I was born!   --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

IRCEdit

Hey, any chance you could come by on IRC for some time?
•–• 05:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

There. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Since you left while I was typing a message: Right now, you are looking at a story you want to get published. As a reviewer, I need to also look at things how that affects the future of the project. In Mizher's case, it was him saying not to print it. In this case, it is a restriction added by the Pentagon not to print that in a political ad campaign. A political ad campaigner speaking to a journalist for a news article is not running an ad campaign with that news story. Pentagon's restrictions do not apply to news articles unless we are running an ad for them. If the ad manager says "you can't print this because of Pentagon", she knows what Pentagon's restrictions are on political ads, but, thankfully, in the email she says it can be in a news story. Leaving things out because of incorrect interpretation of the context, what we do, what the restrictions are, and on whom + a contradiction of our pillars and the first amendment. She knows her limitations as an ad manager, but that restriction does not apply when she is merely speaking to someone; or when she is not running an ad. Maybe she looked at the interview as an ad, however, a news story is not an ad. This is important because of the dangerous precedent it can leave. Offering a clarification will make things clear. There is a difference between an interviewee saying I said this, but I would rather not have this printed vs an interviewee saying I said this, but the government says I should not be saying this in an ad campaign. One person can wear many hats, and for the purpose of the interview, she is not bounded by the restrictions if she is not running a ad there. And surely, we (interviewer, editor, publisher -- Wikinews and interviewee) are not bounded by the restriction for a news article. I have raised the concerns simply for what message it sends for all articles to come.
•–• 07:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

help me with my article pleaseEdit

Indonesian submarine sinks along with crew of 53 is my article, can you help me with it? Pizza0614 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion tagsEdit

Hello. Please don’t revert like this. Firstly, you reverted an administrative decision - this is not acceptable unless I’d made a grossly wrong decision. The correct response would have been to take it to the formal deletion process. Secondly, you might not think it is newsworthy but there is no better way of scaring of newbies than by deleting their draft articles. Look at what I added to the page - tags that offer guidance plus the necessary elements such as the source templates. If the newbie doesn’t edit it in four days, we can tag it as possibly abandoned. Two days later it can be deleted. We do not need to be harsh on bona fide contributors, even if their contribution doesn’t make the grade. —Green Giant (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, but I surely think we could consider this patent nonsense, or even malicous? Unless I've been considerably behind the times, "Extraterrestrial and Ufo Research Organisation,International", an organisation seemingly just about UFO sightings does not require "Ufology". I mean, what even is this? Is this meant to give credit to UFO sightings? --JJLiu112 (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
It is possible this could be an article about a cult like heaven's gate? Could be they are fucking with us. Regardless, we can handle it in a way we don't end up scaring the newcomers. Six years ago, the articles I wrote might have been in a similar tone; and look at me now! Some guy on the internet literally called me 'the best' :P -- yes we get a lot of shit, but few of them turn out to be invaluable! Pi once quoted his dad, whom he loved dearly, "Always leave things better than you found them." Our actions have consequences, let's utilise it to bring out the best in people.
•–• 17:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Whatever. I fold. --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with newcomersEdit

Hi, JJ. I was afk for some time, had gone out, and by the time I came back there were few activities on the project which you had @Leaderboard: handled. Thank you for doing that. However, at the same time, I saw this edit to @ჯეო:'s article. As you can see from past works of ჯეო, they are genuinely trying to be helpful for the project. And when that happens, your edit summary can come out as rather harsh. Consider the implications -- with that information, your edit will make sense to someone who already knows the Wikinews flow. But to a newcomer, it does not make much sense. Consider an alternate summary: "an article should be marked with {{develop}} if it is still a draft, and if you think it is ready for review, mark it with {{review}}, please." This is helpful for a newcomer, and also sounds pleasant. While it is not a must for all volunteers, a little gesture of helping someone to at least have a sense of constructive collaboration improves their confidence which helps the project. Could you please, in future, take a moment to consider the wordings of your summary -- think if you had made this edit as a newbie, how will you have wanted someone to undo your edits with a summary that would have helped you. We don't want to chase away people who could be a part of the community. Words can have great power, please leave things better than you found them.
•–• 16:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

{{under review}}Edit

Please do NOT edit articles tagged under review. Not unless the reviewer has told you "yes you can edit". Noone likes e/c, and there are good reasons for why the template says what it currently says.
•–• 18:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. --JJLiu112 (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews candidate for Cleveland mayor Arthur KostendtEdit

I put a minor comment on the talk page. Although it's VERY stale, sometimes we can let interviews like this slide through. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

We don't judge interviews the same way as we judge a synthesis for a synthesis. Besides, it is a very common thing for interviews to be published on a later date, because except for time-sensitive interviews, most of the other interviews live a rather long life.
•–• 01:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought the same, but didn't wish to presume. --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, however: knocking on a month is really pushing it. Nonetheless: I failed the article for other reasons as well. There are LOADS of good bits in there, however.....and much could be stirred into a new article easily. I'd like to see that happen! --Bddpaux (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Herzog articleEdit

Please see review comments. There just has to be something more recent that can be folded in to freshen up this article. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to, and instead would opt for more recent news entirely. I'm not one to dwell on the past: reviewers were busy, therefore articles gone. C'est la vie, I'll write more, maybe even about Israel. --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Understandable, however: I don't like to see people waste time/work. You can ALMOST ALWAYS grab something from a failed article to be stirred into another article. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Donohoe articleEdit

Well: sure are a lot of words AND a great deal of sourcing. I truly would hate to see this one burn up in the flames. There just has to be some way it can be freshened up? Admittedly: I (briefly) felt like I was drowning in accountant-speak for a bit.....but that's just me! :) --Bddpaux (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Friend, I suggest you read your own user page: "Get it, write it, submit it, move on." With all due respect, I really think it's an unfortunate situation, but that my effort would be better spent on writing recent news (such as Fifteen killed in Mogadishu, Somalia suicide bombing which needs...ahem...someone to review it), then endlessly freshening stale articles. Thanks for your compliments, though! I try to distinguish myself from both mainstream news coverage and other syntheses by doing a bit of investigative work on my own. --JJLiu112 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough! Most people get so horribly hurt when an article fails. You will find (over time, at least) that certain bits can add value to later articles. (not always, just sometimes.....) Certain awful corporate messes (for example) might have 50 ugly 'events' that transpire over a six-month period, and showing the decline into madness can have journalistic merit, so-to-speak.--Bddpaux (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Vitaly articleEdit

Take a look at paragraph 2. Is he the first Russian candidate? Or: the first Russian candidate from Siberia? I can't figure that out. We might need a period in there somewhere. --Bddpaux (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Back at it! Look at source item 12 of 13 [de Blasio]. Is there material from that 2019 article found within your article? Where? Did I miss it? Is it (or something else) redundant pertaining to de Blasio? --Bddpaux (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
It proves he can't run for another term as mayor, which was not mentioned anywhere else. Because it isn't exactly 'Paris is the capital of France' level obvious, I figured I'd cite it. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah.....ok. Hmmmmmmmm. We'll let it float. It might not be a crime (in the future) to create an Additional Sources or Related News section (or the like) for stuff like that at the bottom of the article. Generally, sources aren't about let-me-slip-this-in-here-because-someone-might-think-something-about this other guy.--Bddpaux (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Published.--Bddpaux (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Thanks, Paul. Just thought I'd add the source of Trottenberg was also there just to show she's a 'former' Transportation person, so I guess next time I'll put that in another section too. It's been six months, but I'm still learning :p --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Cool. You like sources and that is a THING OF BEAUTY! Let me dig around and see some old examples of different 'clusters' of sources we've used at the bottom of article pages. I'm busy in life/work, so it might take a day or so. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Answered.......Edit

....your question you'd left on my talk page. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)