Both Chicago gun regulation articles are not duplicates


If you look at the articles more closely, you will find that those two articles aren't duplicates, and that one (Chicago approves new handgun regulations) is an update, the newest news, on the topic. The other is pretty stale.

I created both articles, and I didn't write two duplicates on purpose. You should look more closely at the articles, list the older one as stale or something, and let the other proceed. --Shankarnikhil88 3 July 2010



Please don't sight edits on articles that are not yet publishable. The risk is low, yes, but there's no need sight things in development. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply



Hi. Are you on the mailing list? --SVTCobra 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I was just wondering how you could verify Two-time Eurovision entrant Edsilia Rombley .... Mike has since explained that he sent you the transcript directly. Cheers. --SVTCobra 15:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Earthquake strikes Melbourne, no reports of injuries


Hi. Please don't forget to sight articles after you publish them, as you did with this article, otherwise they will not appear on the main page, effectively causing them to become lost. Best regards, Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Jury considers Curt Dagenais court case


Can you point out what I missed. It seems like you saw an expert's testimony which condemns Dagenais I missed. I tried to add the additional...RCMP testify this...Dagenais testify that. I tried very hard to only state the facts from all the articles to let the reader decide for themselves. Kind Regards Mandy (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I changed the article again.Mandy (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, an IP address under your username recently reviewed this article. Please confirm that the IP was indeed you, so that I can sight the article for publishing. Thanks. Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. The computer must have "timed out" on you or something. That happened to me once too, I think it automatically logs out if it detects that no action has been taken for an hour. Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: Namibia struck by floods, declares state of emergency


It should be 2nd source, 3rd pargraph from bottom. Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your help on this article. SriMesh | talk 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

User:Tempodivalse/Writing contest


Hi! I'm just sending out this note to all our active contributors saying that there's an article writing contest at the above link that's ready to start, if you're interested in participating. Thanks. Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Manitoba residents receive evacuation flood alerts


Thank you kindly regarding the additional citation. The fourth citation added after the article creation had only minimal information that ice jams were causing problems n of Winnipeg, now the actual RMs are named. Fargo crisis won't happen in Manitoba: Doer ] The Roseau River First Nation readying for flood evacuationcitation verifies Dominion City was in a state of emergency. SriMesh | talk 18:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

I will look at downloading or using a different word processing program. The one I am currently using is not producing spacing properly when I move content from it via copy and paste to the edit screen here. So I must go through it all again manually. Hopefully, I can find something that corresponds better as it is easier to use a word processor than the edit screen here for preliminary work. But it is frustrating to not have spaces after commas and what nots work out. Do you edit articles directly here or use an external program? SriMesh | talk 00:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

US climate envoy equivocates on environment


Do you have a suggested improvement for the title?

from Wiktionary:

  1. (intransitive) To use words of equivocal or doubtful signification; to express one's opinions in terms which admit of different senses, with intent to deceive; to use ambiguous expressions with a view to mislead; as, to equivocate is the work of duplicity.
    The envoy described the US 1990 goals as "A 16% reduction...", which it might be compared to current emissions, but certainly not a 16% reduction over 1990 emissions.
  2. To render equivocal or ambiguous.
    As quoted in the article, stating that it's in no one's best interest to create an agreement that the US Congress will not ratify is patently untrue, and makes ambiguous what the goals of the US are in the environmental talks based on his comments.

It seems to me Mssr Stern served as an emminent example of the term 'equivocate', but that my simply be my personal opinion. - Amgine | t 04:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

BC Electoral reform referendum suggestions


I replied to your concerns here:;_referendum_campaigns_underway

Jlam (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re: congratulations


Haha yeah I did, I was quite flattered Soapy (talk) 01:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Changes made


Addressed issues brought up in the tasks template and on talk page of article BC election writ drops; referendum campaigns underway. There may be more info before April 14, but perhaps the prepared article is a little more "prepared". Thought I would contact both yourself and Jlam, regarding changes early. SriMesh | talk 05:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

sics in original reporting quote


As you were the one who originally added the quotes to the article, could you check the original transcript/check with the original reporter regarding the items I've marked with template sic at One in five Americans finds socialism superior, poll says to see if they are errors in the statements themselves, or simply transcription errors by the reporter? (As an aside, it would be useful if the sic template here handled the ? and nolink flags the way the WP one does...) John Darrow (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Diepusting your peer review of the BC election article


Look, I can't see how you can conscionably pass an article about a highly divisie and polarized election as NPOV when there's only the Premier's picture in the offing; especially when, as it turns out, Jane Sterk's is already in WikiNews; Carole James' isn't, not under the same image-name anyway. On that basis alone NPOV should have failed....guess I'll read the rest of the article to see what else is supposedly NPOV.Skookum1 (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply


edit,_royals_unharmed into the story you started? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you review it instead of saying it's stale? I wrote it 30 minutes after the event ended. I don't even want the date changed, just so it gets published. Calebrw (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply



Um... these sources are used to help pull together the brief discussion in the last paragraph, though it must be said that nothing in there isn't fairly well-known. This is my first real "soloish" article for Wikinews, so I'm not sure if we need to include such background sources. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heh. Fair enough, then! =) I'll try to do another article on this once the case progresses a little more (or do we add to the pre-written article?) Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just to note


Hi, I'm just sending you a courtesy notice reminding you that you are at 3RR on Wikizine - Year: 2009 Week: 7-22 Number: 106. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 02:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Thanks for your review and feedback of the article. I understand this, I don't think I made it clear but some information in the article was only revealed yesterday, namely all the arresst information which was from a source I persued as police obviously wouldn't comment and so I found an anonyous, but accurate source myself, which only became available yesterday. If this is not enough for it to be still relevant now, if I add in information about upcoming actions by the same pressure group at the end of the article, would it then be?
Thanks, Jules. --Juleshs31 (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Thanks for your reply. My original reporting notes are a combination of written notes, photographs, scans and a non-recorded interview with a source (conducted over an encrypted internet connection). How should I format the evidence? Should I just type the written notes, add the typed notes, upload the jpeg of the scan and link to the photos? As for the HTML mark-up, ah yes very sorry, I am used to HTML mark-up from web design training, I am reading the linked tutorial. And yes, I would very much like to apply for accreditation after I have contributed for a while, as I do cover events and political protests fairly regularly without accreditation, this can cause problems with police and security guards etc, so that would be incredibly helpful.

Thanks, Jules.

RE: Image license and phrasing. Yes I apologise for the conflicting license, CC-BY-SA-3.0 is the correct one that it is using, I'll try and delete the other license information. For if I do want to use it on wikinews, which non-commercial licenses can I use? As for the phrasing of the sentance, I apologise if it is unclear, the demo was unauthorised by police and the direction I am going in is that the protesters sort of 'took over' the street. I have read the code of ethics, I was observing, I have tried to show no bias and have a NPOV in my writing, if you think that the POV is biased, I apologise and I will definately keep that in mind for further writing to watch for any bias. To clarify, I was not part of the protest, I was there as a member of the press, as I am on most protests. Jules.



Hallo, Vector. I have nominated you to be an administrator. if you accept the the nomination, please say so at WN:RFA. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please note that I have asked you a couple of questions. Calebrw (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why do you not think this story is original reporting? Calebrw (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply



Looks like your RfA passed as successful! Congratulations on receiving the new buttons.   Tempodivalse [talk] 15:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


The admincycle is yours!

More fitting for the nickname, something for a fast getaway from a dodgy interview. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I stole it off Markie, he may be un-amused. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Europeans take to the polls


What do you think of it now? I've tried to improve it a bit. I'm gonna go to bed now, but I am hopeful that it will be on the Main Page today (Sunday) and possibly there will be a seperate article tomorrow on the results. Jolly Ω Janner 02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

As reviewer on this it might be good if you also commented on the excessive number of sources and the issue of external links. As SVT says, that number of sources is highly offputting when you look at an article needing review. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I already responded to this on the article's talk page. There has already been extensive commenting on this on the talk page. I said I will take it under advisement and will strive to use fewer sources in the future. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Source changes



I made a few changes to the source list. Now the article includes reports from more liberal-leaning news outlets. Hopefully, this will be the diversity needed to publish the article. I didn't try to make the article itself biased--it is what it is. All of the quotes I used are exactly what was said by various parties. Also, the firing was technically illegal. The Glenn Beck source was only used because Inspector Walpin chose to go on that program. Had he chose to appear on Rachel Maddow's or Kieth Olbermann's, I would have listed them instead.

Thanks for your time, --WNewsReporter (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Peer review



After myself and others re-wrote much of the article regarding Gerald Walpin, I believe it is now ready for another peer review. Would you mind checking it? The link to the article can be found below.

Link: Scandal erupts after U.S. President Barack Obama fires Inspector General Gerald Walpin

Thanks. --WNewsReporter (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I added the White House's response to validity of Inspector Walpin's firing. Everything should be okay now. --WNewsReporter (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply


The article should be ready for publishing now. Would you mind doing a peer review?

Thanks. --WNewsReporter (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the review. --WNewsReporter (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Killing Vector, would you mind doing a peer review for the article above? --WNewsReporter (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply



They already have it on fr.wn --SVTCobra 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, as I said on my talkpage. It need a [good] translator. Tonneins (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

50 Articles


Wow, you've written 50+ articles already 0_0. Gopher65talk 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This award was presented to Killing Vector on August 2, 2009 for exceeding the 50 published articles milestone. Congratulations!

Project INDECT


I need all the help I can get on this. Take a look at the in-prep article text, the video, and my notes on the talk. At the moment I'm going to look at the NeoConOpticon report - will be speaking to the author in the next couple of days. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply



Sincerely I could not understand why this free contribution was deleted. I would like to disapprove the deleted action and allow to keep the contribution to Wikinews, but if you can not understand it, please make me a favor, remove it completely and delete my registered account as well, as soon as possible. Regards, Paulomiguel (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

[removed random religious rant added by user: ] Bawolff 07:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

NPOV issues


Please address the concerns I raised on the talk page. - Amgine | t 02:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Union contacts


As the resident Union God, can you take a look at this and tell me if any of your contacts stand out as qualified to weigh in. Obviously, I want to get as close to the action as possible, but I'll take whoever I can get on this. This isn't a new allegation, and some prelim research I did previously suggests that if something was really fishy with those, and a third infamous disaster, it may go back to the 70s or even the 60s. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seeing what we can get from Unite/BALPA would do quite well; especially as BALPA helped found IFALPA. What union(s) do Airbus workers belong to? IIRC they have at least one English factory. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply


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

Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.

Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use. You can view your user rights log here.
Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges 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.

--Pi zero (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Reply