KTo288, 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! DragonFire1024 06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply



I gather you logged off to avoid autosight when editing a published article. The thought is appreciated, but —unless you're aware of a wiki software anomaly I hadn't heard about?— unnecessary: en.wn shut off autosight about two years ago. --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, check my history, haven't been active here for ages.--KTo288 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay; thought I'd better check, as there was one brief incident this past summer (I think it was) where our configuration got mis-set, so that admins had autosight turned on. (We talked to Bawolff and that got fixed quickly.)
I should probably mention, since you haven't been around lately, two related policy changes:
  • If you make any edit to a published article that is "substantive", i.e., something that wouldn't be allowed on an archived article, you don't sight it yourself; you leave it to be reviewed for publication by an independent reviewer (independent of the edit, that is).
  • Substantive changes are allowed only during the first 24 hours after publication. (There used to be inconsistent statements about how long; I think one place said 48 hours and another said 36.)
--Pi zero (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, again.--14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've submitted for review the changes I was going to make before publication; they're now pending (last I looked).

Alas that I'd failed to use {{under review}}. When I realized it had been published out from under me, I'd already spent about an hour and a half poring over the sources, and had a short list worked up of changes I'd reckoned were probably needed. I couldn't stand to let so much work go to waste, so I just kept going and finished the process, rechecking each item on my short list and submitting the edits as changes for review. --Pi zero (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry looked okay to me. Sighted by someone else, but would have been happy to do so if not.--KTo288 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

The review comment was, of course, addressed to you. (I think some of the edit-history during review may be relevant to you as well, though I'm uncertain off hand.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

You,ve hit the nail right on the head, the article as it is an eye opener of what can be done with an article I thought was on the way to deletion. Thanks.--KTo288 (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Buddpaux has a knack for adding a zesty splash of OR to xyr articles. You many note, all those Related news items I added are Buddpaux originals. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Rather shows my lack of recent understanding of the community.--KTo288 (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews Shorts: January 28, 2012


Published. Review comments, edit history. --Pi zero (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply



Timing for tomorrow's workshop is set for 2pm (1300 UTC).

Sorry time announced so late, but our Australian visitors for the Paralympics have been incommunicado, and airborne. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, should see everbody at the wikimedia UK offices later.--KTo288 (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Not everbody than, our Australian visitors were on a tour of the paralympic villge, nice to meet all who did attend even if it was just your disembodied voice that was present.--KTo288 (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Vanuatu sends lone Paralympian to London


Hi. Seems this could be construed as a substantive change of the meaning of the sentence (depending on how one reads it, which is kind of the point), so would have been better left for someone else to review. --Pi zero (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to get this out before it became totally overtaken by events, but couldn't help but tinker with it, the opening sentence seemed overly pedantic, however I've just remembered an aussie I met who was part of the Cook Island's Olympics team, so competitors need not compete for their birth nations, so maybe I really should have let the sentence stand.--KTo288 (talk)

Review request


Hi. Can you place a priority on reviewing 15 medals awarded on fourth night of track and field at London Paralympics? This is the Oscar Pitrious article, and that is hugely, hugely, hugely popular Paralympic news wise. --LauraHale (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, didn't get the chance to oblige ,busy doing other things.--KTo288 (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Request for reviewing and other assistance


Hi. Next week is the start of the IPC Alpine Skiing World Championships and two Wikinewies will be attending to cover the para-alpine skiing ahead of the 2014 Winter Paralympics . This is part of an effort outlined at Wikinews:IPC Alpine Ski World Championships. Immediately following this event, there will be a Meetup in Barcelona where Wikinews, the Paralympics and efforts to similar sport coverage will be discussed. At the moment, there are only two active reviewers on a daily basis. Demonstrating an ability to get reviews for these types of events done quickly is important for Wikinews credibility and gaining access to these types of events. I would really appreciate it if you could sign up on the IPC World Championship page to review, promote articles published during this period, assist in translating these articles into another language or attend the meetup in Barcelona. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I only just noticed your message, stale now I guess. You can leave messages at Commons:User talk:KTo288 its where I am most active.--KTo288 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

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


We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. Unlike the previous version, points are available for people who conduct reviews. (With a University of Wollongong class currently contributing articles, extra assistance is appreciated at this time.) It presents a great incentive for you to renew your reviewing chops, contribute some original reporting not being done by the main stream media, and write some synthesis articles on topics that could use more attention. People should be around to review to prevent a backlog if you just want to write, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Published. See detailed history of edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up, maybe too late now its published , but I was dithering over switching allegedly for alleged in the title.--KTo288 (talk) 22:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Heh. Well, of course we don't like to rename after publication without great need, because it produces duplicate entries in some feeds. But fwiw, I'd considered that choice myself. It works either way; adding the ly makes it active, leaving it off is shorter, neither difference is very strong. I thought leaving it off might tend subtly more toward all of the rest being alleged (that is, both the number dead and the deliberate sinking are alleged), but if that difference is real it's probably also small. --Pi zero (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
As you say no problem either way, if it was an obvious choice I wouldn't have dithered.--KTo288 (talk) 22:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Tomorrow's referendum


You'll note I've piled a bunch of related articles on for possible use in sourcing. I hope to have some photos, possibly video, from the vote here in Edinburgh tomorrow.

What I do want to say is, using the Union flag (not Jack, that's solely for in a naval context) without the Saltire trivialises things beyond what I consider 'reasonable'. Oh, and here's a nice little bit of fiction from the Labour camp: photoshop ruelz. Tweeted from Glasgow, not Edinburgh - where the photo appears to be taken. Zero evidence on the live cameras along Princes Street.

I should be at a polling station before 7am, I'm hoping once I've voted it'll be a good-deal easier to be more-impartial about covering this. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's was meant to be a placeholder image, looked around on Commons Commons:Category:Scottish independence referendum, 2014, and nothing really useful apart from File:Yes Sticker Campaign.jpg. I've removed the image now, as I acknowledge it is a bit tacky, and we should have plenty of time tomorrow to get this right, looking forward to whatever photos you take.--KTo288 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
If you want to avoid someone else starting an article about the result, you might move those articles to mainspace now, so that they'll be listed in the newsroom. --Pi zero (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sure, if you don't think its jumping the gun too much.--KTo288 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Chinese President begins three day visit to India


Alas — review comments. I knew I couldn't do a full review this late in the evening (though I used to find it easy to review all night at whim), but I figured I'd check for any obvious problems; and indeed, found one. --Pi zero (talk) 01:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Substituted the NYT source for a Bloomberg one from earlier this month, of anything it covers the geo-political aspects of the story better, if this one is no good as a source, will remove the Modi quote, as the remaining sources cover the other aspects of the story.--KTo288 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
The Bloomberg source looks accessible with no problem. Cool. I know it's hard to find a substitute for a source when something like this goes wrong. NYT is (iirc) no longer listed on our research page, since it's gotten so paywall-happy. One more reason synthesis has gotten harder to write over the past few years. --Pi zero (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Don't forget to resubmit when you feel it's ready. (Granted, I won't be able to review tonight.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply



Thanks a Lot, due to some necessary engagements I wasn't able to proceed it and had hence delayed it. Thanks a ton. --Abhinav619 (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)--Abhinav619 (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

No need for thanks, all part of being part of a wiki community.--10:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
On the other hand, thanks help knit together a community, and spread good will all around. News takes dedication, and you did fix up the article, and despite glitches due to NYT's paywall, it did get published, and I too thank you (both of you, in fact :-). --Pi zero (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply



I've marked that article as {{under review}}, do not edit. I'm in the middle of a massive multi-hour review of it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I might add, it's not nearly read yet — severe problems with over-closeness to source. --Pi zero (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
sure.--KTo288 (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Which said, of course some of your copyedits are just plain common sense; I'm going through them now. --Pi zero (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if I came across a bit snippy. I'm afraid I'd just spent about an hour reconstructing my review notes that had been wiped out by a laptop crash caused, evidently, by aggressive javascript in the sources of the article. --Pi zero (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
No worries, was trying to stay awake, looking for things to work on, and didn't see the change of templates.--KTo288 (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Published. Edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply



Don't sight any unpublished revision of an article. It sometimes happens by accident; if it does happen, unsight all affected revisions of the article; to do that, look at the page history, select the oldest sighted revision, click the 'unaccept' button at the bottom, then follow the 'next revision' link and unaccept that one, and so on. I unaccepted all revisions of the vote-rigging article. --Pi zero (talk) 20:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, for fixing my mess.--KTo288 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

This review raised neutrality issues that come up relatively infrequently. I concluded it's got a problem with some missing background needed to enable the reader to then make an independent analysis of things; off hand I can only remember one other time I've not-ready'd an article by an experienced Wikinewsie for this flavor of neutrality concern. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • I've also added another source on the talk, Police Scotland are now involved on that point. A second issue, which is being much bemoaned on social media is blank backs on ballot papers.
If you need any media snarfed, and a Fair Use/Fair Dealing rationale drafted, let me know. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • I've tried to make the story the petitions, without going too much into the why? On the one hand I didn't want to go into too much detail, which were at the moment so much gossip, but which gives you the impression of incomplete iinformation, I'm afraid its stale now with the sources given. I try and have a look for more recent sources and see if anything comes up.--KTo288 (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hong Kong police move to open roads in Mong Kok


Well, published. Broadcast reporting is, I've always thought, a difficult form, tricky both for the reporter and the reviewer. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, helped a bit, I hope, because by the time I'd finished writing it, print reports were coming online.--KTo288 (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Oh yes, the non-broadcast sources were key in making it work smoothly. In this case, the broadcast source is more-or-less a synthesis source with an additional filter (bringing with it an additional opportunity for mistakes); one still needs more than one source, and clearly a source the reviewer can examine is much better than one for which the reporter has to take detailed notes which the reviewer then has to weigh. I suppose a more classical use of broadcast reporting is to watch a game on TV/video feed and take detailed notes on it as one would do if attending the event physically, which is even more OR-like, though even in the equivalent sort of OR one would try to provide some synthesis sources to corroborate bits of the story as available. --Pi zero (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for making the effort to review the article, and trusting me on those details which weren't corroborated by the visible sources. Sorry, but do you feel like doing this again. The protesters are at this moment trying to retake Nathan, watching TVB rolling news and the protesters and police are facing off against each trying to force the other down the road.--16:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was a bit puzzled by the article talk page, which describes a broadcast source but doesn't provide any documentation of use of that source — and the article does not, in fact, make any claim to have used a broadcast source. I commented on the article talk page.

No doubt it would all become clear, one way or another, by doing a detailed source-check; alas, I find I don't have a full source-check in me tonight. --Pi zero (talk) 02:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, I tried. Ended up with a sizable fraction of the article unverified, though :-(.  Sorry I couldn't get to it sooner. I'd love to see us continue covering this story. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
Sorry had other things to do, thanks for ther help. Thankfully things calmed down, and both sides stepped back from letting this becoming the showdown.--KTo288 (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
It happens. I certainly do appreciate the time difficulties of Wikinews. --Pi zero (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sir Terry's obit


I really think he deserves more from us.

What do you think of putting it back to develop, and expanding with tributes as they come in over the next day or two?

I found this on Facebook, and it brought a tear to my eye - since I've read almost-every book he wrote:

  "I would like my pudding now nurse. And then I think I'd like to... write... something... I don't remember what."

Standing in the corner, he waits. The sand slowly flows, but it nears it's end. The old man still glows, as thousands of threads spread away from him.





The old man looks up, through them at first... and then he sees them. For once, the smile on the hooded figure's skull is genuine.

"I... I remember you. The anth... ant..."


"Yes, that. We knew each other?"


He so rarely said it, and these feelings... remembering his young aprentice, and beloved daughter. The beautiful child they have.

"There... is a girl, yes?"


"Well then. You know what they say, two things you cannot avoid. Taxes and..." He looks into the firey blue eyes, and becomes aware.


"Quite right. Is it time already? I have so much left to do."


"No, not cancer. Alzheimers."


"So, where is the boy? I remember a boy."


"Ahh. Never much trusted cars. Or horses."


"Must I?"




"No. Shame really."


"Is it truely turtles?"


"Ahh. I would love to see it. Perhaps a small trip before?"


"The light is slower there... and there's a monkey...."


"Yes... will they remember me?"


"What was that? I could not hear you."


"I never much liked the trouble people had with you. You seem like a nice fellow."


"Don't we all?"


"Is it quick?"


"Ahh. How about a cup of tea?"


"No. how about checkers?"

And so they sat, two old friends regaling each other, though the old man could not remember all of the details, the cloaked man and his rat filled him in, when it was needed.


Thoughts? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem on my part.--KTo288 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Articles in WN:Newsroom needing review


Hello. Currently, four articles at WN:Newsroom are awaiting review before publication. You may review at least one of them. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for helping out with the Bill Cosby article. Much appreciated. --Pi zero (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply



Hello. Your account has the reviewer permission but you do not appear to have reviewed any article in over four years. The permission expiry policy requires no more than two years pass between each review you carry out. I’m inviting you to carry out a review of an article on the next seven days. Otherwise the permission will be removed from your account. [24Cr][talk] 23:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Busy elsewhere? We understand, but this is a notice of privilege expiry!

Note! Your Wikinews permission(s) have been removed.

Under the permission expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the permissions held by your account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of use. You can view your user permissions log here.
Section 4 of the policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of permissions. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the permission reduction is not intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing permissions is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

[24Cr][talk] 20:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply