ImprovedWikiImprovment
| This is an English Wikinews user talk page, where you can leave messages for ImprovedWikiImprovment. |
| This is not an article or an article talk page. If you find this page on any site other than English Wikinews, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware the page may be outdated and the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikinews. The original page is located at https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/User_talk:ImprovedWikiImprovment. |
|
|
| Babel user information | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Users by language |
Welcome
edit|
Welcome to Wikinews
|
Getting started as a contributor
|
|
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.  | |
|
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!
|
Published......
edit....your submission on the explosion. Maybe next time......about 3 sentences more, if possible? --Bddpaux (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Bddpaux: Thanks a lot for reviewing it :) I'll take that on-board for the next story. Best, --IWI (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
|
The Order of the Modest Pencil
| |
| Great work! Keep it up!--•–• 18:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC) |
- @Acagastya: Thank you, and I will make more articles when I see news stories. I've also fixed the signature issue you mentioned. Best, --IWI (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
userspacing articles
editHi. We've had some difficulties over this in recent times. Historically, when an OR article doesn't get published for some reason we've tended to move it to userspace; but we haven't extended this to synthesis articles. The basic difficulty is that if people can just stash news in their userspace, then userspace can turn into a sort of unvetted-news archive, which isn't really consistent with our goal to provide vetted news. (We didn't used to have much trouble with this sort of thing, but for some reason or other lately users have been wanting more and more to userspace their failed articles; I've been wondering if Wikipedia policy has evolved on this sort of thing, and we're getting spill-over from it.) At any rate, our discussions amongst admins have turned toward disallowing userspacing of synthesis. Just letting you know, so you won't be startled when (as seems likely) sometime soon we delete the userspaced copy of this. --Pi zero (talk) 20:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Hello. As far as I can see, there is no policy reason for such a deletion. I wish to keep it in my userspace for future reference, especially your comments. Acagastya suggested this was because of NOWEBHOST, but I am keeping it for the purpose of improving my articles for the future, which doesn't fit into this criteria. Even if it did, it is not a criteria for speedy deletion, and would need a deletion request to be deleted, per Wikinews policy. Best, --IWI (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Recent consensus interpretation has not agreed with your interpretation. (I recall someone observing that policy is belatedly writing down how we already do things). At any rate, the point about the feedback is well taken (in fact, review comments disappearing along with failed articles is an awkwardness we've struggled with for about as long as we've had review), and while I'm a bit leery, I'm tentatively okay with keeping the comments around in this case, and we'll see how it goes. (Though the phrase "what can go wrong?" gives me a vague sense of alarm.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you really feel this is such a problem that it should be deleted, then start a deletion request to see if the community agrees with you. Perhaps a discussion should start to make the NOT policy more clearly worded, though I would certianly say the spirit of NOTWEBHOST is against those who want to keep irrelevant content in their userspace, as opposed to people who want to refer to their previous work to avoid repeating identified mistakes. If there is an issue with it not being vetted, it can be NOINDEXed so no outsiders could possibly land on the page from a search, or a disclaimer template at the top of the page. The point is, there are better ways to approach that issue than simply not allowing userspace drafts at all. Best, --IWI (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I too have considered alternatives, and may continue to do so... for the moment, I really thing the conservative approach is better stuck to. Really, with a bit of thought I could likely list a bunch of basic principles (those thorny things that underlie policy) pointing in mulitple directions on this; and, yes, NOINDEX is one of the tools at our disposal and this hasn't escaped my notice. (I'm hoping to take a look at the review queue in the next few hours...) --Pi zero (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, perhaps this is a discussion to be had amongst the community for the best approach. --IWI (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: For the record, your deletion of the page in my userspace does not fit any of the CSD, and thus would require a discussion before deletion (here) before deletion as per Wikinews policy. I did not agree to such a deletion, so user request does not fit. The job of a sysop is to use the admin tools to act either on direct community consensus (a discussion) or through a pre-existing policy that the community has agreed on. Deletions such as this that are not based on either of these certainly undermines my trust in the admin toolset here. --IWI (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Are you planning to reply or do I have to bring this up elsewhere. --IWI (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Brian McNeil was good at being harsh (though fair) with newcomers. He played the curmudgeon very well because he really was one (he'd mostly retired from Wikinews in the past few years, and then last summer he very suddenly died, we think from COVID-19). I'm not as good as it because by disposition I don't like conflict with others, and it sometimes leads me to come across too soft. You've been doing well, showing great promise, and I have no wish to drive you away. But there are, as I alluded to above, a number of basic Wikinews principles involved. The essence of the situation is that the function of the project to produce vetted news places constraints on how the different namespaces are to be used (which is true on any of the sister projects). Compared to other sisters in my experience (I've contributed extensively to only three), we're somewhat narrower in what we allow in userspace (also, to greater and lesser degrees, what we allow in other spaces, but we're talking about userspace atm). I'd say this is in the penumbra of not-a-web-host, yes; it's also visible in the broad shape of the function of the project. The usual trajectory of a synthesis article that fails to achieve publication within its freshness window is that after four days (or so; all this is fuzzy at the borders) of inactivity it gets PRODded as abandoned, and after another two days it gets deleted. It is, in fact, key to the functioning the project that this happens, for practical reasons both internal and external (I'm getting uncomfortable here, as I see the reasoning branching outward; there's a great deal of subtle, deep dynamics to Wikinews that afaik has never been written down, and if we stopped to try to write it all down the project would stop because we'd be putting all our volunteer effort into meta-writing rather than news production or developing our infrastructure; I'm given to understand this is typical of small news outlets, they're too busy doing to document; argh...) — internally, simply put, our ability to continually focus on current-news production requires us to continually move on; externally, our ability to present vetted news depends on not displaying unvetted news (as well as several other problems with hosting unvetted material — this fragments into ever-larger numbers of logical branchings). --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: First of all, I am sorry to hear of Brian's passing. However, this does not change the fact that your summary deletion is not backed up by policy. I am happy to have it deleted within policy (perhaps by a deletion request), but not when no policy backs it up. And no, saying that there are rules that are not written down is not an acceptable reason. If you do not restore it (and start a deletion request if you wish), my trust in this wiki's sysops will be lost, and I will be compelled to take this further. I come from a wiki that is actually smaller than this one in terms of editors (SEWP), and we manage to handle the rule keeping (and not speedy deleting articles against what policy says). --IWI (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- It is covered by policy. Afaict this has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple admins. It also, btw, is not compatible with the project continuing to function. And this all smacks of wikilawyering. In addition to the named specific policy, it's also on the fringes of several other policies: you're asking to host a cut-and-paste move of a page that is destined for later per-policy deletion. --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: First of all, I am sorry to hear of Brian's passing. However, this does not change the fact that your summary deletion is not backed up by policy. I am happy to have it deleted within policy (perhaps by a deletion request), but not when no policy backs it up. And no, saying that there are rules that are not written down is not an acceptable reason. If you do not restore it (and start a deletion request if you wish), my trust in this wiki's sysops will be lost, and I will be compelled to take this further. I come from a wiki that is actually smaller than this one in terms of editors (SEWP), and we manage to handle the rule keeping (and not speedy deleting articles against what policy says). --IWI (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Brian McNeil was good at being harsh (though fair) with newcomers. He played the curmudgeon very well because he really was one (he'd mostly retired from Wikinews in the past few years, and then last summer he very suddenly died, we think from COVID-19). I'm not as good as it because by disposition I don't like conflict with others, and it sometimes leads me to come across too soft. You've been doing well, showing great promise, and I have no wish to drive you away. But there are, as I alluded to above, a number of basic Wikinews principles involved. The essence of the situation is that the function of the project to produce vetted news places constraints on how the different namespaces are to be used (which is true on any of the sister projects). Compared to other sisters in my experience (I've contributed extensively to only three), we're somewhat narrower in what we allow in userspace (also, to greater and lesser degrees, what we allow in other spaces, but we're talking about userspace atm). I'd say this is in the penumbra of not-a-web-host, yes; it's also visible in the broad shape of the function of the project. The usual trajectory of a synthesis article that fails to achieve publication within its freshness window is that after four days (or so; all this is fuzzy at the borders) of inactivity it gets PRODded as abandoned, and after another two days it gets deleted. It is, in fact, key to the functioning the project that this happens, for practical reasons both internal and external (I'm getting uncomfortable here, as I see the reasoning branching outward; there's a great deal of subtle, deep dynamics to Wikinews that afaik has never been written down, and if we stopped to try to write it all down the project would stop because we'd be putting all our volunteer effort into meta-writing rather than news production or developing our infrastructure; I'm given to understand this is typical of small news outlets, they're too busy doing to document; argh...) — internally, simply put, our ability to continually focus on current-news production requires us to continually move on; externally, our ability to present vetted news depends on not displaying unvetted news (as well as several other problems with hosting unvetted material — this fragments into ever-larger numbers of logical branchings). --Pi zero (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Are you planning to reply or do I have to bring this up elsewhere. --IWI (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: For the record, your deletion of the page in my userspace does not fit any of the CSD, and thus would require a discussion before deletion (here) before deletion as per Wikinews policy. I did not agree to such a deletion, so user request does not fit. The job of a sysop is to use the admin tools to act either on direct community consensus (a discussion) or through a pre-existing policy that the community has agreed on. Deletions such as this that are not based on either of these certainly undermines my trust in the admin toolset here. --IWI (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, perhaps this is a discussion to be had amongst the community for the best approach. --IWI (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- I too have considered alternatives, and may continue to do so... for the moment, I really thing the conservative approach is better stuck to. Really, with a bit of thought I could likely list a bunch of basic principles (those thorny things that underlie policy) pointing in mulitple directions on this; and, yes, NOINDEX is one of the tools at our disposal and this hasn't escaped my notice. (I'm hoping to take a look at the review queue in the next few hours...) --Pi zero (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you really feel this is such a problem that it should be deleted, then start a deletion request to see if the community agrees with you. Perhaps a discussion should start to make the NOT policy more clearly worded, though I would certianly say the spirit of NOTWEBHOST is against those who want to keep irrelevant content in their userspace, as opposed to people who want to refer to their previous work to avoid repeating identified mistakes. If there is an issue with it not being vetted, it can be NOINDEXed so no outsiders could possibly land on the page from a search, or a disclaimer template at the top of the page. The point is, there are better ways to approach that issue than simply not allowing userspace drafts at all. Best, --IWI (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Recent consensus interpretation has not agreed with your interpretation. (I recall someone observing that policy is belatedly writing down how we already do things). At any rate, the point about the feedback is well taken (in fact, review comments disappearing along with failed articles is an awkwardness we've struggled with for about as long as we've had review), and while I'm a bit leery, I'm tentatively okay with keeping the comments around in this case, and we'll see how it goes. (Though the phrase "what can go wrong?" gives me a vague sense of alarm.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
It does not fit any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Accusing me of wikilawyering for pointing this out sounds to me like "I can delete anything I want regardless of the CSD". Although with your experience, I find it hard to believe you are not already aware of this. --IWI (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's been explained to you where the action fits relative to policy, and where the action fits in the operation of the project. From my perspective, it seems as if you're looking for technical excuses to ignore both, which I'd classify as wikilawyering. Supposing it doesn't look that way from your perspective, I invite you to consider how your presentation, and your position, factor into this discrepancy. --Pi zero (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Allow me to approach it this way: on other wikis, such deletions outside of the criteria could result in a desysop. The governing body of any project is its community and the policies they forge. I find it particularly concerning that you state above "At any rate, our discussions amongst admins have turned toward disallowing userspacing of synthesis."; admins do not decide policies and how a project should function, the community do. There is no policy (or even spirit of any policy) that suggests I am not allowed to have userspace drafts, and there is certainly no CSD that the community has permitted you to delete it without discussion. These are facts that do not constitute wikilawyering; you are using the admin tools agaisnt the policies the community has permitted you to use them with. If a community discussion at DR results in the wider community agreeing to delete my draft, that would be fine, but there is absolutely no justification for the summary deletion of the draft that you carried out. --IWI (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- WN:CG is the policy which refers to WN:NOT. That says you shall not use this wiki as a web host. A self-serving page in any namespace is effectively using this wiki as a web host, and it qualifies for deletion. The reason why web-host rule is in place is to avoid the following situation. Someone comes along, creates an article which is rather dipped in propagada, or is out-right fake news. When a reviewer fails the article, they simply save it to their userspace with the argument of "oh, I will use it for reference for next articles", while sharing link to their fake news with others, and doing it over and over again. Someone else comes along, creates a page full of affiliate links to paid courses of journnalism from definitely-not-scam.com saying "It is for my personal reference, as courses from this will help me improve wikinews". A third bloke comes along, and has potential copyvio in their userspace, copied from, say reuters.com. We don't want to waste resource trying to check for copyvio on pages which aren't news, and will not be published. Disallowing personal reference pages helps us prevent fake news (and yes, at times, it could be hard to determine what parts are fake, ad what are not), spam links disguised as "courses to help me improve in English or journalism", or copyvio. If you find something that will be helpful to you, please do so on your computer, or make your own wiki. If however, if you wish to write an essay on how a reporter could improve quality of articles, that serves not an individual, but everyone. We have a policy in place. And I have explained to you why it is in place, what it helps achieve. The community has agreed to no web host for this reason, and we are following it.
•–• 17:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)- And like I said, even if this is the case (I can't be sure as I wasn't aware of any such discussion), policy does not permit an admin to speedy delete an article based on any of the reasons at NOT. Doing so is an abuse of the admin toolkit. What you have said above could be true for any wiki that allows drafts, but it isn't a problem as it isn't in the mainspace where readers will actually see it. --IWI (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone can create fake news/spam/copyvio on User:Foo/Bar and share the link. And if you think about it, why web host reason is a valid reason of CSD is because if tomorrow, hundreds of spammers start using wiki as their web host, (and causing the problems I have listed above), admins should not have to wait for a discussion for something that is quite clearly forbidden to be kept on-wiki, usage of wiki as the webhost IS NOT PERMITTED. Since it is not permitted, you should not be using it as a web-host at the first place. Just like, there is no rule: "Users can't copy 18th century British 'news' in their namespace", does not mean you can start using your userspace as an acrhive for old PD news. You should not be using the wiki as your webhost, and any instances of wiki being used as a webhost must be deleted.
•–• 18:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)- This asserion is not backed up by the CSD policy. You do not simply get to decide what is and isn't a CSD; that's for the community to decide. And I am not "abusing Wikinews as a webhost", I am using it to store a draft I have made in relation to my wikinews work. It is not fake news, spam, or copyvio (if it was, then it would be webhost, or other, violations). --IWI (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone can create fake news/spam/copyvio on User:Foo/Bar and share the link. And if you think about it, why web host reason is a valid reason of CSD is because if tomorrow, hundreds of spammers start using wiki as their web host, (and causing the problems I have listed above), admins should not have to wait for a discussion for something that is quite clearly forbidden to be kept on-wiki, usage of wiki as the webhost IS NOT PERMITTED. Since it is not permitted, you should not be using it as a web-host at the first place. Just like, there is no rule: "Users can't copy 18th century British 'news' in their namespace", does not mean you can start using your userspace as an acrhive for old PD news. You should not be using the wiki as your webhost, and any instances of wiki being used as a webhost must be deleted.
- And like I said, even if this is the case (I can't be sure as I wasn't aware of any such discussion), policy does not permit an admin to speedy delete an article based on any of the reasons at NOT. Doing so is an abuse of the admin toolkit. What you have said above could be true for any wiki that allows drafts, but it isn't a problem as it isn't in the mainspace where readers will actually see it. --IWI (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
using wiki for your personal reference/use, is using wiki as a web host. You are hosting things which are not directly beneficial to the project mission.
•–• 18:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is a difficulty here with two branching strategies on how to treat IWI's objections. I (hopefully we) have been treating IWI as a "friendly", someone acting in good faith for the good of the project (although admittedly this is pushing the limits of WN:Never assume), and on that basis one would explain things with emphasis on how and why the project works; following that strategy, I would likely remark at this point that, in general, an article that hasn't been published is more-or-less-by-definition one that we don't know is "safe" under these various criteria. I did allude, earlier, to this problem, via the phrase "other problems with hosting unvetted material"; and of course what it all comes down to is not hosting unpublished news, as I've mentioned repeatedly. The alternative is to treat IWI as a troll, which I find highly distasteful but, admittedly, there is evidence here to support; notably, they claim to not be wikilawyering, and go on to say that deleting something as not-news is a policy violation. --Pi zero (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: So what you're saying here is this: I may be a troll because, in fact, your deletion does fit within the CSD criteria, and I know it does but am deliberately ignoring that fact in order to annoy you. Well, I am truly shocked and bewildered at that assertion and strongly advise you to withdraw it. I have been contributing to various projects across Wikimedia without issue for nearly seven years, and I have never, never been treated by, or spoken to, by an admin like this before. I re-read the criteria for speedy deletion, and once again found no criteria to back up your speedy deletion. There is nothing wikilawyering about that; the CSD page is pretty clear about what the community has said you can and cannot speedy delete. I see nothing about NOWEBHOST there; even if my page did fit that policy (perhaps it does), the community has not allowed you to speedy delete any page based on this policy. --IWI (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. WN:NOT prohibits you from using wn as a webhost. It should not have existed in the first place.
•–• 18:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)- And perhaps that is true, but it is not a criteria for speedy deletion. A deletion discussion would be required to obtain consensus. --IWI (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- You are missing the point. WN:NOT prohibits you from using wn as a webhost. It should not have existed in the first place.
- @Pi zero: So what you're saying here is this: I may be a troll because, in fact, your deletion does fit within the CSD criteria, and I know it does but am deliberately ignoring that fact in order to annoy you. Well, I am truly shocked and bewildered at that assertion and strongly advise you to withdraw it. I have been contributing to various projects across Wikimedia without issue for nearly seven years, and I have never, never been treated by, or spoken to, by an admin like this before. I re-read the criteria for speedy deletion, and once again found no criteria to back up your speedy deletion. There is nothing wikilawyering about that; the CSD page is pretty clear about what the community has said you can and cannot speedy delete. I see nothing about NOWEBHOST there; even if my page did fit that policy (perhaps it does), the community has not allowed you to speedy delete any page based on this policy. --IWI (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
We had a community consensus to not allow the wiki to be used as a web host, and you are in violation of that.
•–• 19:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- That may be the case, but does not justify a speedy deletion. You seem to either be avoiding that or not understanding it. --IWI (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
┌──────┘
Your claimed-paraphrase (a few comments above) of what I said is not what I said; doesn't even greatly resemble what I said. I have, in fact, no wish to antagonize you; the word "troll" is a difficult one, it has variants of meaning, but note that in any case I did not accuse you of being one, rather pointed out that some of your actions create such an appearance. The point I would emphasize there is the symptom: claiming not to be wikilawyering while, apparently simultaneously, claiming that deleting something as not-news is a policy violation. (Deleting something as not news, in some phrasing or other, has I believe been one of the most commonly cited reasons for deletion since before I got here.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Well, I apologise if I mis-characterised what you said. --IWI (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Accepted; feelings have been running high. It's been suggested that when a discussion is running hot one ought to limit it to one comment per day, which I don't think would really work, but admittedly we're all likely to trip ourselves up a bit when moving too fast. --Pi zero (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do enjoy contributing here, so for that reason, I have no choice but to put this behind me, regardless of my beliefs. I have saved the page on my computer instead. --IWI (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Accepted; feelings have been running high. It's been suggested that when a discussion is running hot one ought to limit it to one comment per day, which I don't think would really work, but admittedly we're all likely to trip ourselves up a bit when moving too fast. --Pi zero (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi ImprovedWikiImprovment. Added a new section at the talk page of the article, here. Could you please check? It is not my strong topic area and I may not be able to find the good answer to this question just by myself very quickly. If you need any help, please let me know. --Gryllida (talk) 03:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
covid related article - thanks
editHi ImprovedWikiImprovment, I see your article European Union announces restictions on exports of COVID-19 vaccines amid criticism from WHO has not been making any progress at WN and I fear it will soon go "stale". Just wanted to let you know I used one of your sources to add information on the topic on another wmf-wiki. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Cheers, Ottawahitech (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ottawahitech: Hi. I was just waiting for a little bit of OR before I continued. If I couldn't have obtained a letter I now have access to, part of the article would have to be removed. --IWI (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
In under the wire. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Help
editHi. I don't really know what I should write about. Should it be on a local range if anything? I'm just not sure. Anyways, if you could give me a few suggestions, that would be good enough. Thanks.TheFurreterPress (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- @TheFurreterPress: Hi there. So, Wikinews is meant for a global audience. This means it must be newsworthy enough for someone in another country to be interested. Please read WN:INTRO and WN:ARTICLE for an introduction. --IWI (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)