Welcome to Wikinews! Thanks for creating Auckland man convicted of sedition, we appreciate articles like this. This article appears to be what Wikinews calls original reporting. Wikinews articles must cite sources for all assertions they make. In the case of original reporting, you are the source. The way we usually deal with this is for you to place a comment on the article talk page, stating who you are, what your relationship is to the story you are covering, and describing the nature of the reporting (i.e. interviewing, taking notes, observing events, etc). You should also read Wikinews:Original reporting.

If you are intimately involved in the event being reported, it may be more appropriate for you to request an interview, rather than write an article.

Discussion about your article will occur on the article talk page. Please go there to participate in the discussion with other Wikinews contributors. Keep at it and try to get this article published, which can sometimes be difficult, but you will find that it is worth the effort. - Borofkin 06:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikitionary --> Savant, maybe you have some insight for that definition :) -Edbrown05 04:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello, it seems that you have made a request for the page to be deleted, but marked as abandoned. If you, the author, requests deletion, than an administrator like me does not have to wait the two days to delete the page. Since it seems that you are requesting deletion, I was just wondering what I should do. Thanks. red-thunder. 11:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • Hey, I'm Hunter. I made an article about the Spanish judge and investigation, but I hadn't seen that you had done one as well. I'm sorry about that, I didn't mean any disrespect or anything, and I wouldn't have done it if I'd seen that it was there already but I didn't see it. I see that you were putting in to have your article deleted. If you wanted to go that route that's fine, but if you wanted me to have mine deleted instead, just let me know. Again, very sorry about that! — Hunter Kahn (contribs) 13:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Nothing to be sorry for - duplicates happen in a distributed system. Yours is the better article, and the one which should be retained. As for merging, it contains all the facts in my one, so deleting the old one is the best approach. --IdiotSavant (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
Also, if you want the article to be deleted immediately, by author request, you can simply add {{delete|Author request}} to it, and a sysop should be around shortly to remove it. Thanks, Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'll add in my two cents on this - duplicate articles is just one of these things that happens from time to time. If you spot it (whether you created one of the articles or not) the approach is to merge into the older of the two articles. The {{mergeto}} template is used for this. Of course, these are cases where the older article is something like just one sentence, and you might be better merging into the more recent attempt - that's a judgement call. If you do the merge, checking that all the facts in the article to be deleted are in the one to be kept, then you can label it with the {{delete}} template. Note in filling out the template the article details have been merged to, and then an administrator can do a quick check before zapping it. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply