Welcome to Wikinews


Getting started as a contributor
How to write an article
  1. Pick something current?
  2. Use two independent sources?
  3. Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start.
  4. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs.
  5. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask?

  • Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template.
    [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

 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.
As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems.

Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation
  Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.
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!

It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.

Microchip08/Archive, 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! Cirt - (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. We cannot publish your article Google bug brands every page as harmful yet, as some information contained in it is questionable. Specificly, StopBadware.com denies giving google the site blacklist, claiming it is in fact the other way arround. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. Bawolff 06:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Korea article

Nice work – reviewed, published and (at the time of writing) one of the five lead stories on the front page. Have you considered joining in the Writing contest 2010? Regards, Bencherlite (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contest entrant template

To keyboards!!


Points to remember

The competition page is here. Remember, you'll need to move from the newcomers to experienced section as the competition progresses.

Everyone who's new to Wikinews remind yourselves of the article guide and style guide. And, use the Enter an article tab in this template to correctly start your competition articles.

Getting Help

Possibly the fastest way to get help is to look for the regulars in the #wikinews IRC channel on Freenode. See this page for more details. Remember, many people will lurk, connected long-term, but not regularly checking for messages. Please be patient when looking for answers to queries, it can be annoying to see someone ask a question but leave before you notice it.

The usual places to look
Start here for competition-ready templates

Use this form to create a competition-ready article. Be sure to check the Main page and Newsroom to see you're not creating a duplicate. Please also add your article and point score to the log so that your score can be counted.

Good luck!

This template should be given to all participants in the writing contest, since you added your name after the official start, the bot didn't send it to you so i'm adding it here manually. :-) Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 18:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, I took the liberty of adding your Korea article to the log and adding your name to the standings table. Hope you don't mind. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much. — μ 19:06, Wednesday January 27 2010 (UTC)


I, Tempo, give you this Exceptional Newcomer award for your great synthesis reports in your first few days here, and for writing real news (not that entertainment trash that so many contributors are interested in!   ). Tempodivalse [talk] 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers, i think you deserve this. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Consider yourself huggled. — μ 14:44, Sunday January 31 2010 (UTC)

The Wikinews Writing Contest 2010 Newsletter

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


should the category have gone on the user page instead of the user talk page? -- (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have promoted you to the Wikinews:Editor class, as I feel you can be trusted to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Please take a moment to read:

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews!

Tempodivalse [talk] 23:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! I'll review some articles tomorrow :) — μ 23:38, Tuesday February 2 2010 (UTC)

pages in cat

Here's the basic js to do that. Adapt as needed (If you don't use the number of articles marked as breaking, remove the pagesInCat('Review-High Priority').push().


function pendingReview (numbWaitingForReview, numbPriorityReview) {
 if (numbWaitingForReview > 1) {
  document.getElementById('p-logo').getElementsByTagName('a')[0].style.backgroundImage = 'url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Breaking.gif)';

addOnloadHook(function () { 
 api().pagesInCat('Review-High Priority').push().pagesInCat('review').lift2(pendingReview).exec();

Cheers. Hope that helps. Bawolff 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

btw, i changed the url for the 2-bar logo as the original had typo. cheers Bawolff 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks — μ 23:44, February 3 2010 (UTC)

Smart Quotes

What are they? And I do edit offline,but I do not copy-paste.Thanks for the review!! --Adi4094 (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smart quotes probably have a more technical name, but they are the quotation marks that look like "66" and "99" -- “This is in smart quotes” but "this is in normal quotes". The problem with them is that they cannot be easily typed on a keyboard, and look strange when both are used on the same page. It's a feature that can be turned off using Microsoft Word, but you may find it easier to use Notepad. — μ 09:41, February 4 2010 (UTC)


User:Willjillings Who's he? He just pub. ur article.China and US clash over currencyRegards,--Adi4094 (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea. Thanks for the heads up. — μ 10:59, February 4 2010 (UTC)


I, Adi4094, hereby award Microchip08 the Wikinews Trophy for his fair reviews, helpful tips and sense of style.

You deserve to be a Editor.Your tips helped me a lot.Thanks. --Adi4094 (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much! — μ 12:43, February 5 2010 (UTC)

Writing contest newsletter: week 2

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 03:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Metropolis News

First of all thank you for reviewing :). but could you please edit the text according to the "style" part? I mentioned that English is not my native language, so a native speaker should do that. I added the missing time zone according your review, and what's arte is allready mentioned and wiki-linked inside. and like you labeled it, it's old news right now, so almost all of your review-reactions are fulfilled. and the first review hasn't reacted in any way, so what shall I do now? best regards, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contest newsletter: weeks 3-4

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 22:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Yo! Some random dude 17:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I hereby reward the Exceptional Newcomer Award to Microchip08 for the large amount of work you have done over the last few weeks. Keep up the good work! --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just created Wikinews:Story preparation/82nd Academy Awards and I request you to make some stylistic improvements, additions, subtractions, etc. Thank Yyou --Adi4094 (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for the welcome :-) MaenK.A.Talk 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi I removed the inline citations, what now?? is it ready?? MaenK.A.Talk 09:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get uninvolved

In regards to this. Get uninvolved. It really doesn't help an antagonistic situation to pop in and vote sides. Really, everyone just needs to chill. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I initially did not notice this edit. Not cool man, not cool. Chill out, and don't antagonize people, they do notice hidden comments. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 03:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies. — μ 17:18, February 27 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews:Requests for arbitration


(Soy Rebelde v. Blood Red Sandman & Microchip08) I have requested and arbitration. Per the format, consider this satisfying the "Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request" requisite. --Soy Rebelde (talk) 06:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there!

Hello Microchip08! I'm back to Wikinews after a long time at en.wikipedia. I wanted to know how I would become a reviewer here. Would you help me? Currently I'm a reviewer at en.wikipedia.Regards, --Sainsf :) 16:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Here.μ 17:45, July 9 2010 (UTC)

Stale items

Hi, I notice you failed the review of UK fugitive Raoul Moat commits suicide on the 12th on grounds of staleness. The event and sources were from the 10th. The content guide suggests that 2-3 days from the publication of sources, and within 10 days of the event itself, constitutes "news". --Killing Vector (talk) 09:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I remember, no new information was added compared to an earlier article, bar one thing (that he had died): so the "news" was stale as it had already been broken elsewhere on the site. I didn't think it was worth creating an entire article -- that, for much of it, was almost a direct copy and paste -- for one sentence. Had that sentence been a paragraph, I might have passed it. However,I do not have the original article in front of me, so my recollections may be completely incorrect, or, perhaps, I'm thinking of a different article. I apologise for making such a grave error, and I will attempt to do better in future. Sorry for any inconvenience, — μ 17:55, July 15 2010 (UTC)


Did your accred get 100% sorted out? I've also a GIMP design for business cards; sadly, the best option we can offer at the moment when prior "semi-DIY" passes have been 'craptacular'. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dominican comedian Freddy Beras-Goico dies aged 69

Hi there,

The name of his television show has already been added. I have added the infomation of why his family fled Colombia and the infomation about his funeral goes as far as it his in his home country of the Dominican Republic.

Cheers, Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

X Factor finalists top UK singles chart with charity song

Hi There again,

The article still has a little bit of time left in it. A new source has been added, and i have updated and added more to it. Thanks, Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About the vandal

I believe the vandal will have multiple accounts aready. Two, have the same name: AmyRosePwnsU (talk · contribs) and AmyRose00000 (talk · contribs). I bet their will be another coming along soon. Nascar1996 03:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AmyRosePwnsYou has been blocked locally, and AmyRose00000 has been locked. No other accounts have yet been created; no further action required. — μ 10:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion reasons

I haven't had a chance to look into the infrastructure you've evidently lately set up for the speedy delete template. One thought has occurred to me, though, based on my observation of it in practice: It would be handy for admins if the short versions of its reasons for speedy deletion were taken directly from the dropdown menu that admins have evolved for convenient use through the page deletion tool.

On a day-to-day basis, that dropdown menu (rather than the policy page) is the de facto list of standard reasons. --Pi zero (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How Does it Look?

United States airline Horizon Air adopts new public branding I am thinking it is starting to look like an actual article now, but I don't know if it should be moved to review yet or not. Teamcoltra (talk · contribs) 21:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feel free to put articles up for review any time you like, but beware that harsh criticism sometimes entails. Your lede could be improved substantially: I want to know who, what, why, and when. The article doesn't explain enough: I haven't a clue what 'Eskimo' is. While w:Horizon Air has shown its ability to be successful as a stand-alone brand (it was recently ranked number two in on-time performance in the United States and ranked well on a global level as well) is too POV to go in the lede (in my opinion), and, it could be argued, to POV to go into the article. It also needs categories. Take a look through the style guide again, and Wikinews:Writing an article might be worth a revisit. — μ 21:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey MC8, just thanking/congratulating you on your recent high-output of articles. In my time here, I don't think I have seen so many in the review queue. :) ~YTT T | C 10:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank-you! It's not as much as Tempodivalse used to write though; and none are them are of the quality of BRS or Brian McNeil. Care to help? :Dμ 10:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure! I'm going to write a few now and I'll have a look at yours to see if I can do any copyediting :). ~YTT T | C 10:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contest newsletter

—Message delivered by MikemoralBot on 00:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews Writing Contest Newsletter



My apology if I was violating rules (if I was, I was unaware of this). I posted it on McNeil's page first, but changed my mind because it's a very important issue (the article contains a defamatory statement) and I thought it would be noticed sooner in the water cooler. I'd have chan ged the article myself, but it's locked.-- (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm simply letting people know (so that if they contribute to one discussion, they'll read the other before replying). I have no stance as to whether you were in the wrong or not. If you login, you'll probably be treated with more weight. And then, you can edit other articles more easily ("" is hard to remember, a username generally isn't). Regards, — μ 18:33, June 8 2010 (UTC)


This is part of a forked discussion from here. Sorry, but that edit of mine was an error. The real message is here- I thank you for your help.Well, I will try to improve by going through more articles. I will ask you some of my questions if the Water Cooler doesn't satisfy me. Today I will ask you only about Babel boxes, what these are? I will try making articles on rare news events- will it be right? Currently I have created an article 'FIFA World Cup starts today' on Wikinews. It is short, I require more information to make it a little much long. Now I have made it visible as requiring review. I'll be seeing some of the best Wikinews articles and learn from it. Again, before concluding, Thanks. --Sainsf :) 09:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NSW fire Brigade

Sources rectified, articles dont list their authors or if they do, do so in an abbreviated form i.e AFD. P.S. Who doesn't know what NSW is? Jeez, what nation do you hail from? -- H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, do you know what CoE is? — μ 10:53, June 11 2010 (UTC)

I wanna say the Council of Europe but I am guessing that UNLIKE NSW, CoE has like 100 different meanings... -- H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken Template Rectified =D -- H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia (talk) 11:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DfT? And don't forget the headline. — μ 11:27, June 11 2010 (UTC)

Something to do with math...what's wrong with the headline? I don't know how to change it...teach me how to -- H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia BKCW8 (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can't change it until your account is more than four days old. In the mean time, post it on WN:AAA. — μ 11:48, June 11 2010 (UTC)

Given Verification

Hello! I've given the verifications and added new facts, it's needing review. Does it require anything more? Regards--Sainsf :) 11:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello there!Thanks for reviewing. But how did you categorize? Is my article satisfying now? Please advise me how to change the news of Nelson Mandela's visiting! Regards--Sainsf :) 11:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello there! I'm going to write an article on Eron Ronay's death this morning. I've enough information. Please can you tell me-

  • To which categories I should add the article to?
  • Some tips on Style Editing?

Thanking you, Regards--Sainsf :) 14:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Please review my article 'Food critic Egon Ronay dies at 94', which is ready for publishing.--Sainsf :) 16:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Detailed statistics?

The search engine didn't give me any joy when I tried to hunt down 'detailed statistics'. What are they? Would opting in be helpful to me or the project? --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not really. It just meant that I couldn't see the graphs here (but it's hardly important). Regards, — μ 18:21, June 24 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas!


fetch·comms 23:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. — μ 09:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why you are annoyed to see an image of a pussy? Don't you like pussy? --SourceEditor (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


...you're flooding the recent changes :P If you are going to work more, do you want the pseudo-bot flag? Diego Grez return fire 21:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hopefully it's all done now. All I need now is a vandal to come along so I can test it ;-) — μ 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Psst! Excellent :P *flies away like a fly* Diego Grez return fire 01:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm supposing you'd like this file deleted. Templates evidently don't work in css files (which figures). --Pi zero (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I see BarkingFish has nominated you for adminship. The nom is waiting for you to accept or decline, yonder. --Pi zero (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Microchip! Just a heads-up, I've asked you a question at the RFA. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 16:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why is this page showing up in Category:Speedy deletion? --Pi zero (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumably because it's got {{delete}} written in there somewhere; I'll go and fix shortly. (If you're wondering what it is, by the way, User:Microchip08/Scripts). And if you're wanting to get onto IRC without too much fiddling and hassle, here's a temp. solutionμ 18:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one time I made a push to get IRC sorted out once and for all, the puzzle on which I stopped, making a note to figure it out "next time" (this was months ago :-), was how to avoid publicly revealing my IP. --Pi zero (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. Install an IRC client of your choice
  2. Connect to irc://irc.freenode.net, to no channels
  3. Register with NickServ, /msg NickServ help register
  4. Either /join #freenode temporarily with your exposed IP and request an unaffiliated cloak* or:
  5. Request a Wikimedia cloak
  6. Wait for the cloak to be applied; then /join channels as normal.
Alternatively, you could connect via Tor. — μ 21:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, It's not empty anymore.Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand why you deleted the Category:Ahmadiyya from Indonesian president urged to respond to anti-Ahmadiyya violence‎. I have re-added the category to prevent speedy-deletion for now - so we can discuss.Peaceworld111 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, I know I am being a really big pain.. I understand most but what about the articles that have pasted the time they can no longer be edited? Thanks Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you can't edit them, can you? — μ 22:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is what I mean, does it mean that those articles are not included within the Wikinewsie category or is their another way? Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You beaten me to it :-P Diego Grez return fire 18:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm curious. Looking at the net effect of all that, why remove the fullurl? It seems to still work (thought I'm not entirely clear on why), but building an insecure link into such a basic page for people using the secure server — when it used to be server-relative — seems a surprising choice. --Pi zero (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was a complete accident. I rolled back my edits to the interface message, forgot to readd. — μ 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note to self

Keep an eye on {{NHL Scoreboard}} — μ 13:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal:2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami

I don't remember exactly, but I think that portal was frozen as an archive news item. (We didn't have portals at that time, and the idea was to create a single central news article about the news event, which didn't quite work imo.) - Amgine | t 05:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there!

Lol, It seems that twitter it's a huge powerful tool. All sources used, contain some information that will help verify the facts. Thanks for the welcome. Saloca (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal:2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami

I don't remember exactly, but I think that portal was frozen as an archive news item. (We didn't have portals at that time, and the idea was to create a single central news article about the news event, which didn't quite work imo.) - Amgine | t 05:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there!

Lol, It seems that twitter it's a huge powerful tool. All sources used, contain some information that will help verify the facts. Thanks for the welcome. Saloca (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My customised main page

Do you know how to edit the four boxes on my main page so that two of them are in two rows each? So far, I have only managed to get two boxes on one row with the boxes underneath placed one on top of the other, if you know what I mean. Can you please suggest what you can do to help? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 23:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protip: Split the sections into subpages, such as {/Intro}} to clear up the wikitext and make it easier to find the problem. — μ 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm wondering, why did you disable the progress-review gadget? --Pi zero (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disabled it because it wasn't working for me, and it used to. Admittedly, I didn't check very much (so was probably a mistake), I assumed that it was incompatible with 1.17 — feel free to revert. — μ 13:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's working for me, now, producing a baleful red eye in the corner of each window.
Could you be overriding the default logo? As for example during the christmas season, when it didn't work because we had the logo with the hat on it. --Pi zero (talk)


I understand, thanks. I did not do this intentionally and think the issue stemmed from an edit conflict between JoshuaZ and I, as we were trying to merge two articles. Thank you for cleaning it up. Tyrol5 (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk:Danes overestimate their welfare

Regarding Danes overestimate their welfare, are you asking me to change the template? I don't understand what you are requesting me to do. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make sure the concerns are addressed. If they are, remove {{stale}} and {{abandoned}} from the article, and resub for {{review}}. Regards, — μ 20:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The concerns are "Procedural failure; article has Aband and Stale tags on it — the concerns must be rectified before progressing to the Review stage"? Now the article is stale, since the recent sources (February 23) were added on February 25 and now it is February 26. Hopeless. Mattisse (talk) 20:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voodoo sex ritual leaves woman dead -So you are saying that I can edit the article?

So you are saying that I can edit the article? I will not be punished as "disruptive" if I do? Mattisse (talk) 21:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep. Be aware of the following points: all edits will be reviewed by a reviewer, the same way they would had the article not been published; edits to articles older than 24 hours are frowned upon; most edits are generally (but not by policy, unless I am mistaken) made during {{develop}} and {{review}}, and not {{publish}} — constructive edits are, by definition, not disruptive. Go ahead! — μ 21:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indian Railways in the Red

It was my first story and I'm sorry for not getting it right. Now I'm reading articles on 'How to write well on Wikinews' and how others present their stories. I just want to ask you to delete the Indian Railways in the Red story because it's of no use now.

Thank You.

Sin un nomine (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixing {{w}} links

Noticed you wrote in an edit summary "[did you know? There's a gadget to help you spot these :P]". I'm not sure whether that question was for me, but just in case it was — I did notice the gadget, use it, and love it. But I often leave unfixed local links in an article. My original purpose in creating {{w}} was only secondarily to catch wp links that could be made local. Primarily it was as a bookkeeping device for categorization: a {{w}} that links locally is an indicator that somebody should give careful consideration to whether or not to add the article to some category(-ies), associated with that link. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn't; but by linking with {{w}} one can defer that decision without losing track of it. I have, rarely, been known to change a local link in the archives to use {{w}}, for later scrutiny (years later, if that's how long it takes; why not?). --Pi zero (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you did name the category "fixable" local links (not that it matters much). A problem (which may not be a problem) is that the fixable category is going to grow and grow: a category with 200+ pages is nigh unmanageable — my reasoning for fixing the links was to keep that category down as much as I could whilst it was still <50. So, is the maxim "remove the {{w}} if you add a category; keep it if you aren't sure"? Years later is fine, but perhaps our successors won't appreciate us leaving mammoth tasks for them. In short, I feel we should fix as we go along. Thanks for pointing out the ulterior motive of {{w}}: it's not something I realised — if it's OK with you, I'll continue to remove calls to {{w}} that point to local links, but add categories where required. Feel free to veto if I'm misunderstanding. — μ 16:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good, excellent point about "fixable"; it needs to be called something different. I'm not sure "categorizable" is quite right, as it might move someone to uncritically add every such article to the associated category, and "processable" seems too vague. Hm.
Those who came before have already left us with an utterly mind-blowingly vast task, to clean up the categorization/linking of the archives. Note, it's not just the number of links involved that makes it so vast (there may be only about one or two hundred thousand of them), it's the intelligent thought that has to be put into each article, deciding where links should be added or unlinked, and how each of them relates the article to various categories that do, or might, exist. It isn't, imo, always possible to know when one first looks at an article how best to deal with categorization related to every one of its local links.
It also seems to me impossible to complete each one of the innumerable subtasks involved if one allows oneself to be drawn off endlessly into other subtasks at the same time. Nothing ever gets finished, and after a while nothing ever gets started. The only way to get one subtask done is to not be tempted into straying off the path. I've found it's just possible to fit in one secondary task (that of adding {{w}}) alongside whatever I'm working on; more, and everything would grind to a halt.
So as I see it, the category soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-"fixable" isn't a matter of bequeathing a mammoth task to the future instead of not doing so; it's a matter of bequeathing a mammoth but measurable task to the future instead of bequeathing the same vast and immeasurable task that we inherited. --Pi zero (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wacky edits

Hi. When I added "notcategory=Internet" to the S&T feed, it turned blank. That's why I just traded banned cats. When I look at your change in "edit", it looks blank too. Do I need a new pair of WackyGlasses?!  ;-) RichardF 14:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So it is. No idea what's happening there. — μ 17:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Al Jazeera cameraman murdered in eastern Libya

I tried titling it "shot dead" and "killed" instead of "murdered" but the page move would not let me do it. Mattisse (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am confused. I tried to follow the directions on Talk:Al Jazeera cameraman dies in eastern Libya and directions to merge with another article. But article move rejected most titles. And I am not sure what has happened now! Mattisse (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The software didn't accept the page move because there was another page with the same name that interfered with the rename: Al Jazeera cameraman killed in eastern Libya. In order to "merge" the articles, you should simply expand the existing article with content found in your article. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I had moved my material and sources to the article. But I wanted to get rid of the title Qatari cameraman shot dead in Libya as misleading, and Qatari is not an important fact in the article. I changed the title successfully but then tried adding italics to Al Jazeera in the title which screwed everything up. I tried "murdered" in the title but the reviewer thought that was POV. Anyway, I think it is all straightened out now! (I will be more careful in the future.) Mattisse (talk) 16:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category name change

I renamed the fixable category to Category:Pages with categorizable local links. --Pi zero (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds a lot better; good idea. — μ 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request that you add an option

This section has been migrated.

Hey I think the category you added to Special report on Japanese tsunami emergency in Pichilemu, Chile, "2010 Chile Earthquake" is the wrong event. That was a different earthquake. --Ashershow1talk 17:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

note to self

Dendodge 9 Bleep 0 Jersey 8 — μ 11:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two students shot at Delaware State University

This wouldn't be an archival copyedit, in my judgment, but a correction notice. I also think it needs corroboration. The only surviving source addressing it says officials said Newark, NJ, so if (as seems common sense) it's DE, the correction notice should make it clear that our article is still an accurate snapshot of what was known at the time. --Pi zero (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I think you're right. I'm not sure how to proceed, however. By the way, add "redesign {{correction}} to be not so scary looking" to the to-do listμ 17:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How's User:Dendodge/Correction as a start on your second point? I did it a while ago, it seemed appropriate to mention it now. DENDODGE 18:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks too much like {{delete}}. — μ 18:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably, we want two mutually independent sources that say Newark, DE. I've found one easily, a source for the en.wp article — Washington Post. I'll look for a second.
Each {{correction}} notice should leap out at the reader on arrival, because its purpose is to prevent xem from being misled when reading the article. Eyes may slide right over an {{ambox}} no matter what it says. --Pi zero (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to review

Could you please review my latest article? It is called 'Worst song of all time' becomes YouTube sensation. Please try to review this as soon as you can as its about to stale. I would really appreciate your co-operation with this. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 00:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not in the best position to sit down and thoroughly review an article, sorry. — μ 11:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firefox 4

FWIW, I've just upgraded to Firefox 4.0 —which is, as advertised, wonderfully fast— and the whighlighter gadget no longer does anything. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea why, and I can't check in order to fix. — μ 03:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As of this morning, I've got green underlines again. No idea why. --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent 'drama'

I hope my recent contributions in an effort to defuse an unacceptable situation meet with your approval.

You may note the "post-mortem" item on a sub-page of Geoff's talk; your comments on that, subsectioned, would be most welcome.

Geoff starting on, what I felt was an attempt to lay groundwork for defence of later outbusts, isn't. A followup in the same form based on the actual version reviewed may reinforce that more-than-serious quality concerns existed; plus any remarks on xe's response to what I characterised as a "terse rejection"(see xyr talk).

Obviously I'd want my advice on WN:AAA considered, possibly given clear indication it meets with community consensus, and a strict interpretation and application of action suggested therein.

Would you concur? --Brian McNeil / talk 07:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

British police charge taxi driver with murder

Could you please review British police charge taxi driver with murder? I would appreciate your co-operation with this. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 21:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can you create a copy of this evil template that works on the embargoed wiki? --Brian McNeil / talk 12:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{#ifexist: {{{2|{{{1|Main Page}}}}}} | [[{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}|{{{1}}}]] | [[wikipedia:{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}|{{{1}}}]]}} iirc — μ 13:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Take it to DR; this is a university research image which is no longer publicly available. There is every reason to believe this may be used in future, and the image is newsworthy in itself. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


As you probably saw on scoop, I've landed the requisite interview.

Can you go on the embargoed wiki and see what you think would be the most appropriate questions? I feel eight or less is reasonable in this case. There's a lot of information to go around that section. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have my interview responses, and have begun filling out additional detail on this. I want to be up in terms of people having followed the scoop correspondence; can you check in on the eporters' wiki and offer your opinion? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:India Against Corruption.png

Will this do? If not, could you point the way to instructions on how to write up a fair use rationale for wikinews? Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, progress

{{PAGESINCATEGORY:Pages with defaulting non-local links}} / {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}
  = Expression error: Unexpected < operator..Expression error: Unexpected < operator.% --Pi zero (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I've just removed {{w}} from {{dateline}} again, because it stops me from removing the {{w}} call for things like {{dateline}}. Obviously this isn't ideal — any ideas? [also, as you've probably just noticed, {{w nav}}] — μ 15:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Null edits

On the off chance you happened never to have crossed paths with this nuance:  Null edits needn't alter the page; just click the edit tab, click the "Save page" button, and it purges the page without adding to its revision history. (I do this to the main page to call up newly published articles.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hm. I was aware of that, but it still showed [[w:... as opposed to {{w|... when I tried that, so I thought I was doing it wrong — I'm not entirely sure what happened, as those edits didn't do anything either. Thanks for the tip, — μ 19:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A tip in return: clicking the   icon that's on the Main Page will purge it as well. :-) — μ 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My eyes have been sliding over that icon on the main page without seeing it. (How to hide a hippopotamus.) Thanks! --Pi zero (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thanks for your suggestion, but I edit completely online. I just make many edits to complete an article. Hope that is ok as I don't know how to edit without knowing how it looks online (with the formatting and all). Regards, Mattisse (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's nothing wrong with it at all! I simply assumed that the double-spacing was from Microsoft Word or somesuch doing strange things. Good luck with the rest of the article. — μ 23:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I don't even have Microsoft Word. Mattisse (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Talkback! here. Ebe123 (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

question about "comments" page

Hi, I am wondering why Comments:Apple's data is dirtiest, says Greenpeace doesn't have a link Back to article like Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred does, for example? (I don't know how to fix that.) Regards, Mattisse (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because Tadpole created the comments page before the article was published, and the script isn't clever enough to add the proper comments header. アンパロ Io ti odio! 15:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
^ that. — μchip08 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there no way to fix it? I find Back to article very helpful. Mattisse (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LQT can't be added without deleting or blanking the page; which is undesirable as there are post-publication comments added to it. The header might be able to be added, but I don't know the template location (or if it would be relevant) — μchip08 15:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For better or worse, I left a note on Tadpole's talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What links were you thinking of? --Pi zero (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

largest oil spill Deepwater Horizon, and explosion all link to separate Wikipedia articles, but link to the same Wikinews category, which I doubt is what is intended. — μchip08 22:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mm. I've been noticing that case lately, as it comes up in many of the Deepwater Horizon articles. Having each of those links go to our category is reasonable, yet having all of them go to it doesn't quite work. Granted, forcing the links and thereby putting them in Category:Pages with forced foreign links could be an interim solution... but in this case, I'm not happy deferring resolution to the indefinite future until I have some idea what form the eventual resolution can take.
The reason I want to figure this out now (even though implementing it can still be deferred) is the nature of my long-term vision. Categorization, even though itself a vast long-term task, is just one step in solving the larger problem of localizing the wikilinks in our articles. I've launched into the categorization partly because it's a necessary step and one already identifiable, but also because I hope to gain insight, through massive breadth of experience from categorizing things, into other steps.
We're very close to identifying another step, here. I can almost touch it. It's tantalizing.
Here's another case I've had my eye on for some months. Eventually we'll have a category for "Space Shuttle", with a subcategory for each individual vehicle. But the articles commonly have links to Wikipedia articles on individual missions (STS-XXX). Most missions are lucky to have one article about xem here, let alone three or more, so there's no chance xe'll ever have categories here. So, what can we provide as an interim link, effectively catching the reader on the way out and providing some useful information plus an opportunity to continue browsing Wikinews? --Pi zero (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My current thinking is the redundant wikilinks are encyclopedic in nature, and, rather than wikilinks from the text, they should be either sister links provided on the article, or perhaps sister links from the category. I'm hoping to upgrade our treatment of wikilinks in articles, and especially want to upgrade our treatment of wikilinks by {{topic cat}} (which currently supports at most one link to each sister, and doesn't name it, which works sometimes but not always). --Pi zero (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry 'bout that!

Looks like I tried to block him at the same time as you! Regards, wackywace 20:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I did a double-take on this. There appear to be two <div>'s, the second of which has a matching </div> but the first seems to match the </div> you removed. Am I missing something? --Pi zero (talk) 23:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect problem

Thanks for fixing. Mattisse (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome.  μchip08 23:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

could you fix this? - it seems orphaned

Baffling seems to be orphaned after you edited it. Or am I not understanding something? Regards, Mattisse (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's right where you left it.  μchip08 17:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry! I wasn't understanding how it was showing up on "Recent changes". My apologies. (I don't understand why you changed it thought, as it is my understanding that is how to formate wikipedia articles. No?) Mattisse (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. However, (if I understand Pi zero correctly, {{w}} categorises pages into links that should/could be "fixed" in future: adding it to non-articlespace clogs the categories up more than is required. (Mind you, one could just use {{w|nocat=true}}, which I'd completely forgotten about when I edited your comment.) — μchip08 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure. It seems like when Pi zero goes through the articles I have written, he changes every link to w| on the "just in case" theory. As for {{w|nocat=true}}, could you explain what that does? 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
All articles could/should/would be {{w}}'d. Many meta-pages, however, don't need to be (as they don't require 'fixing'). As for nocat, it tells the template not to categorise itself the way it normally does. — μchip08 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Where did you learn how to do the markup for this? I'm studying such things intently, the past week, as I gather techniques for a "story form".
  • So, why did you delete your user page, anyway? (Just wondering.)
  • Wondering, do templates xe/xyr/xem materially benefit the project? I'm thinking both of Amgine's phrasing re userboxes in Brian New Zealand v. Amgine and, further afield, of Warren Burger's phrasing re obscenity in Roth v. United States.
  • Imho we actually managed to end up with a good new look for the correction template. Score one for community discussion. :-)

--Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One can set one's gender in Special:Preferences (e.g. Dendodge is a he). — μchip08 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant something to affect how xe/xyr was displayed in text. Ofc, that raises the problem that not all users are a common gender, but w/ever. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's probably a way to change all instances of xe to they if one really wanted. μchip08 17:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

bin Laden

Sorry about accidentally removing your additions; I saw this vandalism and reverted it but it seems your additions somehow got caught in my diff. wackywace 15:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:-) — μchip08 15:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocks of dynaic IPs

I'm not going to touch your adjustment of Diego's block. However, I will point out that most dynamic IPs have minimum lease life of 72 hours nowadays. Additionally, many ISPs using a DHCP pool for broadband will give week+ leases; or, due to people leaving their ADSL/cable modems on 24/7, the lease will instantly be renewed on the old address.

/me is working inside an ISP,.... And, short lease-life is a thing from dialup. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

your suggestion to me

You suggested to me that I filed a Dispute resolution because of the check user that was filed against me.[1]

However, I have looked at the Wikinews:Dispute resolution page that you gave as a reference, and I can't figure out how to file one. Could you please explain how to do it? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What to do?

From the Wikinews:Dispute resolution directions:

  • Step three: Ask the community for help

If things seem to be getting unwieldy, either party may include a template on their userpage to ask the community for some assistance. Often times, the input of third parties can greatly reduce the bitter quips and accusations that slip out when trying to resolve an issue yourself. The community is often times willing to see both sides and can help you and your fellow Wikinewsie find some common ground. It's still experimental, but give it a try.

How do I do this. How do I solicit input of third parties? I have no idea what is going on. I know a lot is "off wiki" which I am not a part of. How do I inform others to give their viewpoint? I cannot participate in the project until this is resolved. Mattisse (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could, for example, post a single edit on the Water cooler (limited, nonpartisan), as opposed to editing lots of users' talk pages with the exact same edit (mass, partisan). A user directly involved in the situation might want a message, but you posted messages to many other users' talk pages that are/were not directly involved in the situation. — μchip08 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I posed on the Water cooler - Assistance. Is that the right place? I can't tell which of those options are appropriate. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. It would help if the directions at Wikinews:Dispute resolution were clearer. A person in my position finds it very hard to understand what to do. I had to ask questions to even figure out how to file a Dispute resolution, as there are no instructions. Is there a way I could get help in navigating this business, as it is all very confusing and I feel helpless. I am basically bidding goodbye to those who have been kind to me, and there are many. Mattisse (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for this, diff, I agree with you that this type of behavior is disruptive and wholly inappropriate on this project. I hope you are well. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. Thank you, Microchip08. Gryllida 07:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meddling with blocks you don't understand

Psychonaut (talk · contribs), on Wikinews, is not the same as on Wikipedia.

Congratulations on unblocking a Willy on Wheels sock because you didn't check the contribution history, and failed to notice the block predated SUL.

Have you done any other ill-advised unblocks like this recently? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sulutil:Psychonaut says it is now merged; and the user, as confirmed on their Wikipedia talk page, has control of the account. — μchip08 20:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Oversight/TUFKAAP

At the moment, you have both a (weak) support vote and an oppose vote standing. Did you intend to strike the earlier oppose vote when you added the later weak-support one? --Pi zero (talk) 03:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see. (Actually, TUFKAAP simply withdrew the checkuser half of it, but that's as may be.) I attempted to clarify the status of the earlier vote; obviously, if the way I went about it doesn't meet with your approval, adjust to taste. --Pi zero (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


39 articles created, and you've never even received one of these....?! That seems a pity! --Bddpaux (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This award is presented to Wikinews reporters upon their 11th published news article.


Priv restored, per WN:FR/RFP. --Pi zero (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note on abandonment

WN:PROD says to wait till an article hasn't been worked on for four days before marking it abandoned. --Pi zero (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, fair enough. I thought it was two. Thanks for the heads up, — μchip08 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's confusing. The template docs only mention two days, which is how long to wait after applying the template before deletion (or userspacing). So I just added a note. --Pi zero (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[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) 09:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]


Why you don't sight template edits. If I was doing them I wouldn't sight them because I barely (if at all) understand the coding so I'd want them double-checked, but I assume you know what you're doing. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 18:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that getting a second pair of eyes on edit is ever a bad thing (Linus' law), even if they don't fall directly into mainspace. It certainly doesn't hurt (the addition to the review load is trivial, and people are more likely to sight single edits anyhow), it forces someone to agree or revert the edit, and saves having to figure out if the edit's trivial enough to self-sight (which I doubt they were). Microchip08 (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds like somebody's a little rusty on site policy :P "...trivial enough to self-sight..." applies to mainspace. Anyhow, my curiosity is sated. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 21:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Votings/complicated stuff

I think I see the intent, but the aptly-named page is too complex for me to reinsert with a link to the disputed cat. If you could, you know, do what I'm too ignorant for, would be appreciated. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The intention was to draw attention to the sixty or so articles that probably require some interaction (whether that be fixing tasks, or deleting them). I'm not really sure why {{tasks}} doesn't add things to Category:Developing in the first place; at the moment, the definition of developing seems to be "new articles that have never been reviewed", as opposed to what I think was intended ("articles that aren't ready for publication but are nonetheless being worked on"). People, myself included, probably only edit the articles that are either in Special:RecentChanges or Category:Developing; I figured we needed to show the others off (and to passive-aggressively point out the backlog).
I'm not sure I like adding the Disputed category link to a sum of developing and disputed, although I can't think of a better way (unless you're verbose and add a separate entry for "Disputed articles"), but I made the edit anyhow Microchip08 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could a DPL or something display the non-disputed pages at the top of Category:Developing? Then we could modify {{tasks}} accordingly without losing substantial amounts of functionality. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand; Category:Developing currently only has undisputed articles.
What functionality would we lose by replacing the Category:Disputed with Category:Developing on {{tasks}}? I don't see any reason to have a distinction between "the author doesn't think it's ready to review" and "a reviewer doesn't think the article was ready for review". I think we should redefine Category:Disputed to mean a passive "articles that are unlikely to ever be ready, nobody has really worked on this, you're welcome to try" (e.g. abandoned articles, articles that are borderline spam, new contributors that won't return), and Category:Developing as an active "articles that have a good chance of being ready, people are working on this, please contribute" (promising but failed reviews, new articles, "important" news). Certainly, we should triage articles better than we do. Microchip08 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't talking about replacing, I was talking about adding Category:Developing alongside Category:Disputed. That, however, swamps the handful of other articles with stuff awaiting abandonment and deletion.
That seems an odd way of defining 'disputed'. I interpret as 'somebody thought this was ready, but a reviewer disagreed' in most cases.
"Certainly, we should triage articles better than we do." +1. The current system is a relic from the days of self-publish, so it was quite reasonable for something to be both published and disputed. It could stand some upgrading. That's a bigger job, though... BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 14:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two more signals detected during search for flight MH370

Hi. I have reviewed Two more signals detected during search for flight MH370 and marked it not ready for review. Feedback has been left at Talk:Two more signals detected during search for flight MH370 on how to improve the article. If you have any additional questions, please ask on the talk page. I or another reviewer are more than happy to try to answer them. --LauraHale (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiLeaks release information on Internet governance

Hi. I have reviewed WikiLeaks release information on Internet governance and marked it not ready for publishing. Feedback has been left at Talk:WikiLeaks release information on Internet governance. Please address these concerns or ask for clarification as soon as possible before resubmitting as the article is borderline on the freshness issue. --LauraHale (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Watercooler discussion: Possible memorial fund?

Hi. I started a discussion on the English Wikinews water cooler at Memorial fund in Ashley-Nelson and Adrianne Wadewitz's honor?. I would really appreciate any feedback you could provide. --LauraHale (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews:Requests for permissions

I imagine Brian's assuming you've noticed, as you edited related templates just after. Nonetheless, a courtesy note that you've been asked to consider picking up the admin tools again. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 15:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mop and bucket


Your an admin again. --Pi zero (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Hi there. You have recently made some edits to the talk pages of established editors on Wikinews using overly formal prewritten messages. Did you know this is an annoying way to communicate? It alienate users by patronizing them, making them less likely to use their donated time to solve whichever problem you want them to work on.

For ideas on how to modify boilerplate responses to suit your uses you may wish to examine this essay by an English Wikipedian. Wikinews uses MediaWiki software, which makes for quick and easy edits!

Seriously. Don't do that. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 10:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was a bespoke message, and there were a lot of pages to type it on. I didn't fancy writing a differently worded message for each user, so I made one that covered all the bases. It could probably be said that any user that manages to get themselves into a situation that has a boilerplate message probably deserves that boilerplate anyway…. Microchip08 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cold have done it with just two versions. Most users only really need a sentence followed by a list. Two or three could use more than that. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 10:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

California passes legislation to ban harmful toxins

Hi Microchip08,

A few months ago I posted a news story up for review about California addressing the toxins in plastic water bottles.

I forgot to take any screen shots of the story and it has since been removed from my contributions page. Although it wasn't good enough to be published, I still need to document the story for a university assignment. Would you possibly be able to put it back up for a few days so I can screen shot it? I'm assuming it was you that removed it as you made some comments on it at the time.

Thank you so much, ( BCarter UOW (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC) )Reply[reply]

This seems uncontroversial, so I've undeleted the page and moved it to User:BCarter UOW/California passes legislation to ban harmful toxins for you. Microchip08 (talk) 09:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deleting admin notified (permalink). Microchip08 (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perspective on moving images to Commons

I get the impression you're keen to move images to Commons whenever it appears to be permissible. Why? Seems to me in most such cases there's no advantage to it and, at best, some mild disadvantages. There is some non-zero chance such an image might get used on some other project once on Commons, but in most cases that's unlikely unless they found out about it from its use here, and in that case they could request the move or do it themselves. On the other hand, every time we do it we increase our exposure to risk of unreasonable behavior by Commons (we've been burned repeatedly by that); and since the local image is, to my understanding, still on wikimedia servers (must be, since it's possible to undelete it later), it's just using twice as much wikimedian server space by having two copies, one (deleted) here and one on Commons. --Pi zero (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm keen to copy files to c: whenever possible; files are used on other projects (one Wikinews related file that used to be locally hosted here is on de:Hauptseite, for example). Deleting on this end is less of an issue; I just think that it should be the norm as opposed to the exception, that is, only if there's a reason.
There's mild disadvantages (files deleted from under us, although presumably Commons users should and do know better than to do so) and mild advantages (single file description, better integration with other projects, better image categorization). Trying to work within (and interacting with) the Wikimedia ecosystem makes it more likely that those users will support our future endeavours, for example.
My thinking is that file photos should almost always use a Commons copy, because it doesn't really matter which picture of Barack Obama is used in an article; whereas photos that are the focus of an article could be uploaded on both ends – although that shouldn't be a review requirement.
I've been using {{now-commons}} to signify that there's a commons copy in addition to the local copy; the template assumes that we should therefore delete (it is a WN:CSD, so we probably should think about changing that policy to fit more in line with actual practice). I think my proposal near the end of the current thread on WN:WC/P Special:Permalink/2601106 is a good one in this regard. Microchip08 (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't follow what you're saying about categories, which seems like it may be significant... though significant in what way, toward what practice, I really can't tell yet, especially since I don't yet even know whether what you're trying to say is something I'd agree with, or not. You seem to be saying something about categorization on Commons versus on Wikinews, but I'm not sure what the distinction is nor under what circumstances it applies. Could you explain a bit more (and perhaps I'll catch on)?
On a side note, although I've no difficulty with the proposition that Commons users should know better, it's a fact that they don't, and therefore patently a mistake to presume that they do. --Pi zero (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it's not particularly significant or relevant; it merely lets us outsource categories to Commons (as we don't really have the framework for categorising images on Wikinews, as far as I can tell). Anyhow, we should copy files to Commons; not moving them isn't something I'm particularly bothered enough about to fight against. We do need to change our policies accordingly, though. Microchip08 (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really don't know where you're coming from on this. And I want to.
You say the categories thing isn't relevant and then turn around and say you don't think we have... something, to do with categories. You're saying we don't have something, but what? Please be clear.
You're asserting we should chance our policies. Sigh. I'd say Commons should change their policies, but the problem isn't, bluntly, their policies but their failure over the long term to follow them. --Pi zero (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Okay, their policies aren't altogether flawless. But the bigger problem is following them.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Anni 4.jpg

The page explicitly links to the image source, which explicitly releases the image under a non-commercial Creative Commons license. It doesn't need a fair-use rationale, despite the inapt phrasing of the template Amgine used in 2011. There's no question the image belongs here; if there's anything to be done, it's to improve on Amgine's choice of template. --Pi zero (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please understand that I am using the {{missing fair use rationale}} template to identify problem images (i.e. ones that need fixing at an undefined point in the future), not to tag them for deletion (although technically it is a deletion category, but no admin is planning to go on a deletion spree). The image does belong on Wikinews, but it's a non-free image, so needs a non-free rationale ("fair-use rationale" is a misnomer), and therefore is a problem image that would benefit from being placed into the tracking category for someone to eventually get round to fixing. Please consider re-adding the template. Microchip08 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So. The page doesn't say quite the right words, therefore it ought to be tracked. But the template you're using to track it says the wrong thing. Where we're still differing, if I follow this rightly, is in whether it's more objectionable to not have it tracked or to have it incorrectly tagged for deletion. We seemingly agree that both courses are objectionable, just not on which objectionable course is worse. Lovely. The "obvious" way out would be to create a third way, a separate tracking category for this sort of situation, but the act of creating this third way is itself objectionable because the devices for keeping track are getting too complicated for an admin to keep track of (can't decide whether that's a pun, or just a profound truth).
The whose situation seems to beautifully illustrate what I've been saying about expertise management: The situation calls for applying expertise that the users maintaining it, even though in this case they'd have to be admins, absolutely shouldn't be required to hold in their heads. There should be cradle-to-grave semi-automated assistance for the situation, and there's loads of little such things all over a wiki so it's not practical to write javascript (or php or even lua) for every one of them. This sort of semi-automated assistance should be treated as an output of the wiki community in the same sense as the end-content produced, therefore should be coded using wiki markup. Leaving, of course, the triple threat of developing tools to allow it to be done in wiki markup, developing strategies to use the tools effectively, and using the strategies to develop the semi-automated assistance for any particular situation such as this. --Pi zero (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

missing image

What was your reasoning on this? I'm unclear on how you see Category:Pages with broken file links playing into it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Pages with broken file links is automatically populated by the Mediawiki software from, as far as I can see, any page with a red link to an image, regardless of whether it's an image ([[File:Foo.png]]) or a link to an image ([[:File:Foo.png]]); but what we(?) want to use that tracking category for is for articles with missing images that don't have a {{missing image}} replacement. At the moment, 'Last Ottoman' dies at age 97 is in there, even though the problem is "fixed" — linking directly to Commons removes the redlink, and hopefully will take it out of the category, which will solely be populated by "unfixed" articles, like Partizan Belgrade kicked out of 2007/08 UEFA Cup (permalink).
Essentially, I want to remove the pages in Category:Pages with missing-image template calls from Category:Pages with broken file links, because they are (for Wikinews purposes) merely noise clouding the useful autogenerated backlog. Microchip08 (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Maybe we'd lose something by not linking directly to the file, but I'd wager that nobody would click the links anyway [especially considering the useful links adjacent].) Microchip08 (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh? Pages should not be removed from Category:Pages with broken file links just because they have a {{missing image}} template call on them. The template is not supposed to remove the page from that list, unless of course a template parameter is used to indicate that somebody has looked into it and there's really no chance of fixing the problem. The point of the template is to make the page look neater without removing it from Category:Pages with broken file links, and the point of Category:Pages with missing-image template calls is to facilitate listing all pages with broken file links that do not yet use the template, so that someone who wants to take care of some administrative backlog can add the template to pages in the difference. --Pi zero (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Missing fair use rationale}}

Please stop 'abusing' this template!

Of a handful of File: pages I've looked at where you have applied this, there is all the required information to complete an appropriate rationale template. It is on that basis that I consider your use of the template abusive; you're the only person asserting work is 'urgently' required, and that the default should be to assume material should be deleted. As I have noted from reviewed File: pages, you could almost as-easily be resolving what you see as a problem.

I would prefer not to have to use AWB, or knock together a bot, to undo every edit you've made that adds this template; however, I will do so if you ignore this request. The matter is under discussion on the Water Cooler, and it would be more-appropriate to resolve and clarify relevant guidelines and policies before further 'tag-n-dash'. Such does absolutely nothing whatsoever to resolve what is a 'book-keeping' task of low priority in meeting the project goals. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think I have ever asserted that it is an urgent issue; wikis don't have deadlines (mainspace aside). I think we have differing views as to what "required information" is. I randomly picked a few current edits from my contributions (whilst being somewhat surprised by the inability of most government websites to archive properly):

I think my additions of {{fair use orphan}} and {{image-source}} are more justified. Microchip08 (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discretionary mainspace redirects

The word was chosen in allusion to Category:Discretionary mainspace redirects — mainspace redirects that may be kept or deleted at admins' discretion. We'd had some acrimony over when redirects could be deleted, given that (so I'm told) deleting a redirect is a relatively expensive operation on the database, so we established a clear set of criterion for when speedy deletion is allowed and enshrined it in the speedy criteria, then began on the current program of categorizing (and protecting) all the redirects in mainspace. (Of which there are roughly the same number as their are articles, I believe — approaching 20k.) Eventually, we should have every redirect in mainspace clearly labeled as to whether or not it could be speedy-deleted at an admin's discretion. --Pi zero (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any ideas what to do with these? Microchip08 (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, a redirect created by moving an article out of mainspace is automatically eligible for speed deletion, though I think I've always had to write out that reason by hand because it wasn't on the menu. A redirect for a Wikinewsie's name, such as Cary Bass or U:BRS, should be fully protected and then put in both Category:Non-news mainspace redirects and Category:Protected mainspace redirects (and oughtn't be put in that last until both of the other things have been done, because the protected cat is how we keep track of whether a mainspace redirect has been fully dealt with). The list is only 93, I see; that's not too bad, especially in contrast to the total backlog of unprocessed mainspace redirects, which I think is about fifteen thousand atm (started around eighteen thousand, we've added some since then, and we've processed about three and a half thousand). --Pi zero (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see there's a Category:Mainspace redirects to userspace subcat of Category:Non-news mainspace redirects. Okay, I stand corrected. --Pi zero (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just noticing that you put up an oppose vote on the ArbComm election. Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/2014 election#How to vote says this is a support only election. You might want to move the relevent comments to the comment bit. --RockerballAustralia contribs 11:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've moved it (being an admin, which the above-linked rules allow to strike oppose votes). --Pi zero (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews:Accreditation requests/Microchip08 (2)‎

I've closed as successful. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you confirm you've an email address associated and verified against your account here, I'll use that to send you @wikinewsie.org credentials. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Special:Emailuser/Microchip08. 0x83D79CE73F41F985 if you feel paranoid. Microchip08 (talk) 10:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dude, I was just adding the source. What's the hurry?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andre.levy.al (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikinews. Unfortunately, we're unable to accept anything copy and pasted from other websites without the original content producer's permission. It's alright to reference outside sources, but verbatim copy-and-pastes are not allowed, so we had to delete it. You're welcome -- and encouraged -- to write an article as long as it is phrased in an original manner and otherwise obliges with our other rules. You'll find the links at the top of your talk page helpful. Microchip08 (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back, Microchip08

I wanted to ask you what you think of the add-on for Firefox:


There is a discussion open about it at the water cooler but I am not sure whether you are watching the page.

--Gryllida 22:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Microchip08,

Do you use a script for tagging articles? The edit summary looks interesting. I spend a lot of time doing this manually in at least two clicks plus manual typing and waiting and this gets tedious. I thought I asked before but I don't see this question here now; probably I forgot to ask.

--Gryllida (chat) 01:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes; it's at User:Microchip08/vector.js. If you find it useful, we could add it as a gadget. Microchip08 (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works with the timeless skin too. But you still check the history tab of each article by hand first? Maybe the script can be extended to show the last edit date in the label or on mouse hover in a tooltip? --Gryllida (chat) 05:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does this not make any edit? --Gryllida (chat) 21:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your script seems to currently not work also. It says that `"api" is not defined.` --Gryllida (chat) 21:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like it depends on Bawolff/mwapilib. My script is two years' old and the way MediaWiki works with JavaScript has changed a lot -- I'm surprised it still works to be honest. Microchip08 (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of our older generation of automation uses that library, I think. --Pi zero (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated it to use the api directly. Here are scripts to add abandoned, under review, editing tags without refreshing the page.
When using the {{editing}} script I suggest to click the button first and then click 'edit' so that the 'editing' tag is already in the article source by the time you load the edit box. Gryllida (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i asked you a question on irc

Gryllida (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year, Microchip08

Wish you the brightest things for the new year, Microchip08. May you conquer the mainstream media bias and JavaScript coding magic, and reviews. --Gryllida (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please review

Hi Microchip08

Please review:

Current review queue as of 22:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC):

For inspiration here is a hot cake and a cup of chrysanthemum tea:


Happy holidays,

--Gryllida (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Insights Survey

RMaung (WMF) 14:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

RMaung (WMF) 19:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

RMaung (WMF) 17:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cloak request

Hi Microchip0! We've received a request for cloaking your a bot on your behalf ("civilservant") however no cloak pattern was submitted, and as such we cannot proceed with the request. If you still wish for the bot to be cloaked, please file a new request including the desired cloak pattern. Thanks, Snowolf How can I help? 01:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New RfA - acagastya - LINK

Hi Microchip08

Please consider commenting.

I pinged you previously, but there was no response. This may be the last notification before the vote is closed.

Also, merry Christmas!

--Gryllida (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How we will see unregistered users


You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)


Hello. Your account has the reviewer permission. Please could you confirm if you have reviewed an article in the last two years because the permission expiry policy requires no more than two years pass between each review you carry out. If you have not done a review in the last two years, I’m inviting you to carry out a review of an article in the next seven days. Otherwise the permission will be removed from your account. [24Cr][talk] 00:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Microchip08 (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary change to article length

Hello. As a reviewer, this note is just to let you know we are implementing a trial from February 1 to April 30 to encourage more articles to be published per the outcome of a current proposal. The minimum requirements for article length will be one paragraph of at least a hundred words. At the end of the trial the requirements will return to normal (3 paragraphs etc) and there will be an evaluation discussion about the trial. Happy reviewing! [24Cr][talk] 23:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary change to freshness

Hello. As a reviewer, this note is just to let you know we are implementing a trial from July 4 to October 4 to enable more articles to be reviewed per the outcome of a current proposal. The freshness window is being extended to about five to seven days. At the end of the trial the window will continue to be at 5-7 days while we discuss whether to adopt the change permanently or not. Happy reviewing! [24Cr][talk] 17:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikinews:Writing contest 2023

Hello. We've created Wikinews:Writing contest 2023, which will start on February 1 and end on May 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 and 2013 contests. As a reviewer who has recently been inactive, it would be a great time for you to rejoin. If you are interested in signing up, please do so at Wikinews:Writing contest 2023#Entrants and create a category for the articles you submit. Heavy Water (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your (in)activity as a reviewer

Hello again. As I see, your last review log was January 2019, more than four years ago. Per WN:PEP, your lack of reviewer activity for two or more years would lead you to loss of your reviewer permission rights. Of course, you could've used the Easy Peer Review tool, whose actions aren't recorded in the Review log, within the past two years. If you also haven't used the gadget tool within the time frame, then a request that you no longer be a reviewer may more likely be possible. George Ho (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

social media (cross-posted to all members of reviewer group)

Hi, Wikinews:Water_cooler/miscellaneous#social_media_for_reviewers_and_authors_and_developers may be of interest to you as a reviewer, thanks and regards, Gryllida (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to the user page of "Microchip08/Archive".