Jade Knight, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Brian McNeil / talk 08:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Non-boilerplate welcome


You're picking things up fast. :-)

Only thing I can think of adding to the quake article is another interesting piece of trivial. When was the last big quake that caused property damage? Sort of something to add to the section about Nevada being seismologically active. "The largest Nevada quake in the last year was x.x on the Richter scale and caused over y million dollars damage in the z area of the state." --Brian McNeil / talk 09:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, the Wells quake was in February, and it was a 6.0. There's a Wikinews article on it which I included in this article. Jade Knight - (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Series of earthquakes strikes Reno, Nevada area


Nice work, and welcome! Cirt - (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nominated for deletion


I have nominated Orson Scott Card criticizes journalists for blaming housing crisis on Bush for deletion, please see WN:DR. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

OSC article


I've taken a look. You probably should look at Wikinews:Opinion articles poll, which suggests more people oppose editorials than support them, even if there may be no policy against them. I suggest that mention your intention to expand on the article to focus on bias in the media and if your intention is to also include Original reporting on Card and on if and when the media has been bias to also say so in WN:DR, along with any other plans you may have for anyone who didn't read the talk page or didn't understand your plans. --darklama 13:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Orson Scott Card criticizes journalists for blaming housing crisis on Bush


If you like, I can move this article into your userspace and then if/when you get an interview, you could work on it there for the time being. Cirt (talk) 08:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to have a say


Hi. Only a few moments ago did I noticed this comment you yours; should I have got here sooner I am confident I would have something to say [1]. Though I am not acquainted with the contents of those news of yours, I indeed find the problems you went through with your news publication very similar to the biased attitude that I am currently facing with the news, from a different field, that I have written and rewritten, to comply the demands of some reviewers.
Both our situations seem connected with the clear comment made recently by another editor about the obsessions of the current peer-reviews system [2]. You may find my earlier comments here and at the the collaboration page. Currently, it is undergoing discussion-voting at the deletion attempt, made by the same previous biased reviewers, here. As I hold the idea that the only failure occurs when one gives up his [constructive] efforts, you're are welcome to have a say, should you wish and whatever your position or point of view may be. Thank you for your attention. Best regards, --Vilalva (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I indeed appreciate the sincerity of your words at my talk page. Though I agree that the news may not have relevance to the usual reader, those news can however have direct relevance to the specific audience, groups of individuals, that I have identified in the collaboration page, which being a restricted audience it nevertheless may count from a few thousands to a few millions of individuals (while potential readers; note that the same happens to many news subjects published at the Wikinews [or any other media agency] from specific fields: politics, sports, technology, etc. news which, however, may or may not [clearly] have a broader specific audience, it varies upon the news contents, but, in spite of being valuable news from a specific field, some or many of the times they have litte or even no direct interest-relevance to the usual reader). All in all, it may not be considered enough to attest or give relevance to those news "of mine" and if that is the case I won't argue the decision of the community. Thank you once more. Best unto your efforts. --Vilalva (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia admin?


I do not quite understand this userbox, according to this - you are not an administrator on Wikipedia? Cirt (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not quite sure how to fix it but Skenmy (talk · contribs) or Bawolff (talk · contribs) might be better with that sort of thing with templates. Cirt (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Don't publish


You are relatively new to the project, but you've crossed horns with me already today over this. Articles should not be moved to {{publish}} without first passing through {{review}}. Yes, this also applies to shorts. This is not official policy but is well on its way to being such. It is a requirement that there is an editorial review process for us to maintain our listing in Google News.

In any case, you caused no harm as we have Flagged Revisions installed. This, combined with other changes, means it is impossible for you to get an article on the front page. You do not have the Editor privilege, and actions such as this recent repeat publication would tend to put any admin off granting you it. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please stop


I reiterate the above comments by Brianmc (talk · contribs). You did this twice on a page [3], [4] - the second time without even using an edit summary. Please do not do it again. Cirt (talk) 13:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You asked Brian what the harm is. I am also new to the review process, so I can sympathize with you not getting it. The harm (apart from irritating people who want to help you) is simply this: that if you would have had the 'editor' privilege, your work would have gone straight to the main page without review. If new contributors pay attention to the review process, and only use the publish tag after an independent review, folks round here grant the 'editor' status to flag revisions quickly without ceremony. Instead, people are now reluctant to give you that 'editor' status, in case you cause harm (according to the new consensus) by publishing unreviewed work. --InfantGorilla (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

No (from reading discussions on other userpages), the harm is that if you get editor status and publish an article that shouldn't have been published, we could get kicked off Google News. That would be very, very bad. Gopher65talk 03:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Gopher65 said it better than I could. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please use edit summaries


Please use Edit Summaries when editing. It is helpful to others to note what type of edits are being made to an article. You may wish to enable "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" under the "Editing" tab in Special:Preferences. Cirt (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your notice at Wikinews talk:Reviewing articles


Please stop. I had (previously) added this as a brand new subsection at the bottom of the page under its own heading. It is also flagged for discussion by usage of the {{flag}} template. There is plenty of notice given. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Reply



At Wikinews, it is normal to list all parent categories. This allows lists like "Latest news for Religion" (at Category:Religion) to work properly when the article is about Mormonism. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

BBC receives 487 complaints after 'Dancing' race row


You are quite right about the being only Moroccan decent. I thought I read Indian as well, but I since have not been able to find it, so good catch. Calebrw (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Reply