User talk:Pi zero/Archive 9

Active discussions

Please do not edit the contents of this page. It is for historical reference only.

Interwiki links for news

Please see current proposal for interwiki linking for separate news: d:Wikidata talk:Wikinews#instance of (P31) and example for Russia accused of supporting Ukrainian rebels' advance (d:Q17812922). In my opinion it looks good. What do you think about this? Answer there please. --sasha (krassotkin) 19:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind making a decision re: this FA nomination?

I say 'no' based upon yours/author's comments........however, since I said 'yes' some time back, it'd be weird (in the very least) for me to say 'no' now. Brazzaville picks up the pieces after ammo depot explosion --Bddpaux (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I can maybe take a look tonight and see what I think.
The thing is, if I were to decide to clear it of my objection and vote in favor, it still wouldn't have enough support yet in my opinion; I believe my comment has been discouraging votes from it. So if I vote in favor it stays open; and if I don't, well... I suppose I could close it as "no consensus", but that seems kind of lame. Hm. --Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
(postscript: I prefer five votes in favor to pass, four in a pinch.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

New to Wikinews

I am pretty new to this sister project. I need your help on urgent basis. Can you get me some very good articles on War and Peace. The article that I have published so far, just do not meet the quality which others meet. Secondly, How do i quote someone on WIkinews, example a statement made by X leader. Lastly, are you an Indian? asking out of curiosity, both zero and pie were discovered in India. --Abhinav619 (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The first place to look for examples of high-quality articles is Category:Featured article. Although featured articles are most often OR, there are some synthesis, too (and even a few photo essays); here's a list (this should work) of ; also, as a matter of curiosity, .
There are some good examples of quoting people in those featured synthesis articles.
If those examples aren't what you're looking for, or don't help, let me know.
I"m in the North American Eastern Time Zone (currently UTC-4, switching in a few weeks to UTC-5 for the winter). So my local time is about ten hours behind India's (plus or minus half a hour).
I'm partial to apple pie, myself. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


@Nikebrand I would if I could. They've taken away the ability of bureaucrats to rename users. I think it's taken care of now somewhere on meta, but frankly I can't find it. Even the page on meta about renaming users makes the — now, apparently, false — statement that local bureaucrats can do it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
For the sake of it, the page is meta:Steward requests/Username changes. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

My, my, my...........'ve certainly given someone a bit of a gastric bleed! What with your standards and what-not!  :] --Bddpaux (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Alas, I don't think the language barrier is enough to explain goings on. But, we'll see what develops.
The notice at the top of my page that my user name has been mentioned on 32 pages is... rather annoying. --Pi zero (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia

Thanks for your help at Category:Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia.

Is there a way to add a param to display Wikidata, the link is but some sites link via the name and some via the number ID.

-- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The wikidata parameter was added to the template for a while, then I had doubts and commented in out (diff), and lately I've been thinking it should be uncommented. --Pi zero (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, there's a slot for Wikinews by default over at the Wikidata pages, not sure how it's used yet, but you could try asking over there on that site to get more info. I think it's very useful, overall! -- Cirt (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
At any rate, I've reenabled the wikidata parameter on the template. --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thank you! Hope you're doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are being not fresh articles are not deleted immediately?

--Nikebrand (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Published articles, of course, go into our archive and are kept forever; our archive is a valuable resource, and grows more valuable with time and with each additional article published. (Commercial news sites tend, sooner or later, to put their archives behind paywalls.) Each article in our archives is a snapshot in time, of what an event looked like at the time it happened — that is, it was fresh at the time it was published.
Articles that are already stale when written, we do not publish; freshness is part of the definition of news (see WN:Newsworthiness). However, if the author of the article is sincerely trying to produce publishable articles, we usually wouldn't immediately delete it for anything less than blatant copyright violation or libel. If the author is sincerely trying to produce publishable articles, and the author is continuing to work on an article even though they know there is something about the article that prevents it from being publishable, then presumably they are attempting to fix the problem. If they conclude the problem is not fixable, presumably they'll stop working on it, and after a while it'll be deleted as abandoned. --Pi zero (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
This rule is real and I have to understand this here. The US science knows anyhow all in their secret archives much better. But it makes a sense to learn English without teachers or payments and Wikimedia is a motivation. The official learning matters are so boring. I will create the next article about Nuremberg versus RB Leipzig as soon as possible. It takes place in the future. --Nikebrand (talk) 20:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Nikebrand, you may find WN:Article wizard of interest. --Pi zero (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
  1. Confirmed. --Nikebrand (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: Brazil reports first suspected Ebola case

Sorry my bad english, no speak native english. Problems in my notice? Sorry. This was completed. Saskeh (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

use present tenses !only! --Nikebrand (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

???? Saskeh (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Pi zero. Saskeh (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: Synthesis articles

Sorry if my english is not good for you. Got it in your case "synthesis news/articles", but go to straight to the point: sources and news can be played here, as are the Creative Commons (CC), but how can I proceed in this case? Saskeh (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

First, you need a focus that is fresh. The focus of the first article, Brazil reports first suspected Ebola case, is now four days ago, so it isn't fresh. It looks as if the focus of the second article, Second test proves Guinea man in Brazil does not have Ebola, is only one day old. Right now, that is still fresh.
Second, you need at least two sources, that are independent of each other. You have one source article, from Agência Brasil. So you need a second source article, that was written independently of the one you have. You should be able to find other articles about the same focus, independent of the one you have, by searching a news aggregator, such as gnews, for keywords "Ebola Brazil".
Third, you need to write your article in your own words. This may be difficult for you if you have trouble writing in English. Remember, you mustn't copy phrases from the source articles (if a source is in English), and you mustn't simply translate phrases into English (if a source is in another language). --Pi zero (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Editors' blog security

I take it you've had numerous password recovery emails about your account on the editors' blog? The security module on the site has given me a couple of alerts over IP addresses trying to use that, or brute-force accounts, and yours seems to be one that has been targeted. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've finally reached the point where I'm losing track of my passwords. I'm still successfully logging into my email account, the password for which I changed after you notified us to change passwords a while back. I've just checked and confirmed that I can't log into the journalists workspace, which is either because the password changed on me, or I changed it and forgot to write it down, or I wrote it down and now can't read my handwriting. I don't remember whether the blog was separate from that, and I'm not aware of having received password recovery emails (but since I haven't been able to manage my emails properly in some time, they could be just lost in the crowd). I've got my laptop configuration in such a mess I suspect my best bet is to buy a new laptop just so I can set it up before trying to extract myself from the old one. --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

w:Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Parallels with en.wn

Hi, there! I've left a reply under your comment at the above linked discussion. I'll add to it here, for lack of space/focus over there, that your work on making the user interface over here a bit less intimidating is very interesting. Indeed, I wasn't even aware of it before you commented over at WT:RFA. In the meantime, I figure a bit of encouragement couldn't hurt; it gets lonely over here sometimes, I'm sure. Keep up the terrific work. Tyrol5 (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that article wasn't fully published.

I just wanted to say "There's not too much information about this publisher, but this interview adds a lot. This helped my research greatly, thank you!" XiuBouLin (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No harm done, XiuBouLin. There have just been some technical glitches in the review process; it's the reporter's first time submitting to Wikinews, so everything's new for them. --Pi zero (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


I was wondering if you could take some action on Brazzaville picks up the pieces after ammo depot explosion in terms of its nomination for FA. I voted 'yes'....but, I dunno....I've done a light source check....looked good to me, but still, I dunno. I have to disappear for about the next 5 days, so, there's that. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do in upcoming days. --Pi zero (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

It makes no sense, really.......

.....that you're only just now getting this!!

--Bddpaux (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


Glad you agreed on the tweak to this, it has been becoming increasingly obvious the button was being used as a way of asking for collaborative help. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Brian McNeil: I'm okay with the tweak. I'm skeptical it'll solve the problem. What we need is interactive assistance all over the place on this site to explain to people what's going on at each moment. Most of the edits we're getting lately are IPs who throw stuff up here, of various descriptions, on the assumption that it's a wiki so anything they think relevant just gets thrown up here, and leave.
And speaking of interactive assistance, I'm now graduating to the next step with my tools... even though I haven't finished the previous step. I still need to add better error-handling, but in starting to do that I've finally admitted I need to have better provisions for testing the tools, suitable for testing upgrades before deploying them — and so now I'm building an interactive assistant for adding a test for a dialog action. It's a really simple assistant, and proving to be quite complicated. I always figured that once I had the low-level tools, learning idioms for using them effectively would be a big challenge; well, it is. I'm thinking what's needed is a storyboard/flowchart for the assistant, but that's hard to do manually so you really want... an interactive assistant. Basically, a wizard wizard. I'm thinking on it. --Pi zero (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


I know but it's hard to find categories that match my article. Im sure there are articles about murders. Why aren't those in a category?

Yours truly,


PS sorry if the format or the way I replied was wrong; I couldnt find a new conversation button on the mobile site ;)

@AKA Casey Rollins: In fact we don't have a category specifically for murder. Someday perhaps we will, but creating such a thing would be a really vast undertaking; we have about twenty thousand published articles in our archives; how many of those do you suppose would belong in such a category? We put each article in at least one section category, such as Category:Crime and law or Category:Politics and conflicts, and a geocat, such as Category:Missouri (and anything in Category:Missouri should also go in Category:United States and Category:North America). We put articles in other categories when they exist. But we don't require that every article have narrow categories describing it precisely.
Btw, I have an “add comment" tab — but I'm not accessing from a mobile device. --Pi zero (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much. I fixed it, the issue was that the first category was tiered too low.

On our little Ferguson controversy ;) I heard the reports first late at night on 105.9 FM WMAL.

Don’t freak out when it says that some anonymous guy just edited your talk page; Mom doesn’t want me to log in on her Mac ;)

Yours truly,


New article

Hi. I would like you to visit my recent sketch for a new article. It is here. Thanks in advance! --FiloActual (talk) 05:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@FiloActual: I'll try my very best. Working around various distractions, of course (including another article that will go stale if not processed today UTC). At a guess, I suspect your article will take some thought for news neutrality, much of which has to do with stating only facts, dealing with opinions by attributing them to whoever said them (because even though the opinion isn't an objective fact, it may be an objective fact that such-and-such person expressed that opinion).
You've got one article to your credit on English Wikinews already, I'm reminded. --Pi zero (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Pi Zero: I was clearing up the neutral point of view, hope now it's better. I love wikinews and I want to contribute on a regular basis, although I have to work every day -as usual. Thank you ! :-)--FiloActual (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
@Pi Zero: And just a doubt: you moved the article's title to "Manhattanʼs 'Little Spain' comes to to big screen (...)". I wonder if it is absolutely correct grammatically, as I read you use two times "to to". Isn't "comes to big screen"? Thanks for that.--FiloActual (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Oops, yeah, that was a typo. Fixed; thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I think the article now is ready to fly. Please, can you make final review or approve it before its too late? It was ready in the morning.--FiloActual (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
As best I can tell, it's pretty fresh. I was disappointed not to get to it today; I'm hoping I can get to it tomorrow morning. I can see a few small things that will want adjustment during review; I've no way to know whether some larger problem might come up during review, until and unless it did come up during review. Which we can hope it doesn't. --Pi zero (talk) 01:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, many thanks! I added a new review after watching the documentary, that is for sale. Changed lede and cleaned speculative comments -although obviously every single newyorker would say you that he knows where Spanish Harlem is, but will have less (or no) idea about what was Little Spain at the beginning of XXth century. Also, the press release at the Spanish Benevolent Society website displays clearly that the text is for free distribution, so no copyright issues. --FiloActual (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Please, can you review the changes I made on the article following suggestions by Brian? Thank you.--FiloActual (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


Good to see you are still around and active! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 12:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Brian :-). I have big hopes for the project, building upward from my dialog tools — which I consider almost ready for heavy-duty use — to high-level wiki assistants. --Pi zero (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

USI journalism students

Pi zero,

Greetings from USI! I have a new group of students for the class that contributes to Wikinews in the spring. I will meet them for the first time this week. I'm hoping that we can replicate what we did last time. Do you have any suggestions?

Crtew (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Btw, I've a technical problem ongoing for at least a month now, that I can't view most videos. --Pi zero (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Mentioned by Viriditas

You are mentioned by Viriditas (talk · contribs) here: -- Cirt (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Pi zero, could you please comment there? Viriditas is trying to take this opportunity to attack you and create an ad hominem situation here. -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


hi least of the world famous orszgárol it is now because when I write mostly news pushed the country to write about but if you have any questions west Irish Disorders

—The preceding comment was added by Kis foltos (talkcontribs) 12:40, 19 January 2015


Are you working on some misc. disambiguation pages?? There's weird goings-on in the Newsroom. --Bddpaux (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That does look odd. It looks, off hand, like a complete list of our mainspace disambiguation pages, which we worked out a scheme for in relatively recent history — but nothing about those pages has changed in I think at least a few months. However, Tuesdays are when the wiki software is updated, so this is probably something that got screwed up by a software change. If they've broken the DPL mechanism, they may have screwed up our ability to correctly regulate which of our articles are published to google news.
I'll have to look into it more closely, immediately. --Pi zero (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Ohh. Phew. Those appear to be relatively newly created disambiguation pages. It's just a matter of how such pages are set up; not urgent, but I'll get to it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Pi zero (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Tom Wolf inaugurated as Pennsylvania Governor

Thanks for reviewing! Sorry about the Jim Cawley thing, probably should have ref'd this page for the election stuff. At any rate, thanks for your diligence. And thanks also for scraping off some of the rust; I've not written as much news recently as I used to. Tyrol5 (talk) 04:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 05:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Autoblockedtext

Your sig here's gotten messed, somehow. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

pre block terminated with <pre> instead of </pre>. --Pi zero (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much

Thank you for your comments at WN:AAA in support of me.

Much appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fire ravages large academic library in Moscow

Can you confirm you got my email re: this and it looks usable? Since I'm rather nervous about closing or refreshing the relevant tab, and I'd rather like to do a restart. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 13:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

If what you sent was about 1.5k of text, I've got it. --Pi zero (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds about right, ta. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 13:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Pricasso paints pleasing portraits with penis

Wondered if you might have a chance to look over this one?

Thanks so much,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Did so. Commented. --Pi zero (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I've emailed Pricasso for an interview request. -- Cirt (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Aside from a possible interview, let me know if you have any other ideas on how to salvage the article for an article that could be published. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for revdel

Can you please change the visibility of this revision, as it contains information that I regret disclosing. Thanks, George.Edward.C (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

  •   Done, I hope neither of you mind me jumping in here. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 20:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


I need you to autoconfirm my account. this will help me to develop my artiles mnore sufficiently. Thanks in advance. I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@I'm feeling slightly mellow: There's little here that requires autoconfirmation. If you'd like an article renamed before you're autoconfirmed, just request the rename on the article's collaboration page. --Pi zero (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, publish my page then please. I don't always feel mellow so this is your chance to get me on board and improve wikinews. I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
If it takes any longer to publish I might end up having mellow myself up using a few substances. I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Is it ready now? Im getting REALLY mellow at this point .... I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Another review?

How about another review? I'm feeling slightly mellow (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@I'm feeling slightly mellow: If and when I can, I will. For perspective, I'm in central Massachusetts, where we're just digging ourselves out from another big snowstorm. We've had something like six feet (two meters) of snow in the past couple of weeks or so. I've been clearing snow most of the day, punctuated with Wikinews when I had to come in to warm up. Since I've reached my limit for physical labor today, after recovering from it maybe I can do another review this evening. (I learned long ago never to promise to do a review; it is a volunteer project, after all.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


This user User:Mike Halterman is listed in the accredited reporters list, but I haven't seen him around in a he still active?? --Bddpaux (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

He hasn't been on-wiki in several years. He's a professional journalist, and got some recognition a few years back. The last time en.wn was nominated for closure, as I recall, he came by the discussion to say en.wn is respected outside the wikimedian community — that his en.wn resume had been an asset with potential employers. Since then he's lurked a lot on the #wikinews IRC channel, and once was involved in a discussion there that resulted in a solid en.wn publication on which, as I recall, the mainstream media was being slow picking up on the story. --Pi zero (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tireless Contribution

With all due motivation and enthusiasm, I have been trying to develop Wikinews. I regret to say this but review's are discouraging me at any go. I require your guidance and experience but why do you seem to be so arrogant. After 3 days, having received no comment I have put two of my articles under publish Cricket World Cup: Bangladesh defeated Afghanistan by 105 runs, Demolition of Hindu temples in the US , wrote on the wall ' Get Out ' condemnation around. At least cite a reason for their shortfall, don't remain arrogant. --Abhinav619 (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Abhinav619. I had already been thinking, about the time you left this note, that I really should try to compose a note of encouragement for you.
Review is challenging, all around. We do our best to review submissions promptly, but remember, reviewers are volunteers too. Usually, the more experienced the writer, the easier review will be for the reviewer — but even if the writer is a Wikinews veteran, reviewing a modest-sized synthesis article they've written can easily take an hour or more. I was glad I was able to marshal the time and energy to do two back-to-back reviews of this article, and get it published for you.
A note on google translate, although I realize you've said you won't be doing that anymore. Translated text is still under the copyright of the original. So if the non-English original is from a wiki, you need to comply with the copyright of the wiki, and if the original is a copyrighted news source you mustn't use a straight translation of it here.
Have you read WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing? There are quite a lot of important points densely packed into that essay. --Pi zero (talk) 11:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Adam Johnson

Not the most important story in the world, granted, but why put it at lead #5 when lead #1 has been in that slot since 19th February and the world has long since lost interest in what the Telegraph may or may not have done to keep HSBC happy? Bencherlite (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It didn't feel like Lead 1 material. If I'd chosen to replace Lead 1 I'd have replaced it with one of the other leads, and the relative weighting of date and importance would be messy; so I decided to just let that decision wait will the next publication, at which time the current Lead 1 will be due to go away entirely so that one way or another such a decision gets made. --Pi zero (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Not that I care particularly about the issue, but I don't think you can be that fussy about what is, and what isn't, lead 1 material given the lack of new material to choose from. Bencherlite (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a matter of priorities. It's been clear before you and I don't altogether agree about the function of leads when output gets slow. I'd like to have a significant story as Lead 1; if it's a recent one, that's clearly desirable, but I'm not inclined to go out of my way to put a less "big" story there — and it would have required going out of one's way in this case to put another story there, because the oldest story was the one in the number five slot. I'd have had to do a bunch of rearranging if I was to keep the five most recent stories as leads and put a different one in the number one spot. --Pi zero (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Article re-name


I have a question/favor to ask of you. Going back to 2009/2010 I have had two articles published that have incorrect/"fancy" punctuation causing it to be recorded separately to other articles. Is it possible to amend the titles, purely to the correct punctuation marks and no other amendments. If so I can link you the articles and you can see for yourself. If this is not possible then I shall just have to bare this annoying cross.

Thank you as always. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Punctuation correction (in the article body) that doesn't change the meaning is fixable within the archive policy; and, although we don't like to change the headline even in tiny ways if we can possibly avoid it while the article is still being pushed elsewhere (may cause double entries on some feeds), that doesn't apply after the article is fully protected.
So I reckon we can probably fix these headlines that are bothering you. --Pi zero (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@@Pi zero:
Great.. Thank you, the articles in question are ‘Twin Towers’ warship set to enter New York and “Dr Death” Steve Williams, American professional wrestler, dies aged 49. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  Done --Pi zero (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer Permissions

I have just had a chance to read your recent comment sand change of stance regarding my nomination for reviewer permissions. I fully accept and agree with your comments and feel it is right. I am happy to work on my article writing and lead the charge in that regard. I am also happy to "Pre-Review" as such.. Making sure infoboxes and wiki links work ect.. Thank you for what you do for Wikinews, it would appear that without people like yourself and Brain McNeil this site may have died. If I can help in anyway please let me know. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Chandlerjoeyross. Wikinews needs writers, as well as reviewers; of course we need review labor, no secret that we're short of it, but while we sometimes get overwhelmed with more submissions on the review queue than we can handle (like this past weekend), lately we've also been having some long dry spells where nothing viable is submitted. What review capacity we do have available goes unsed if there's nothing to review. And yes, "pre-review" stuff like that can help with student articles (when we have student articles, which happens very unevenly). I've given a lot of thought to how we can increase the leverage of our available pool of reviewer labor, and one of the pressure points is that (barring trivially not-ready material), the more inexperienced a writer is, the more reviewer labor it takes to review their work — making it extremely difficult to nurture an increasing community of Wikinewsies. --Pi zero (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A new article

Hi. I am back with a contribution. The address is here. I was for longer time preparing the article and reviewing Wikinews journalistic guidelines, in order to be as close as possible to a final result. I think also it is a very interesting matter. Please review it as soon as your agenda allows it. Thank you.--FiloActual (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Because I dont know how to move the tittle, which was too long, I did create a new subject here Regarding your notes, it is important to say the the official press release at and do show now the date: 19th March. The other one also shows the accurate date of publication. The other sources are there for the reader to verify additional but important information to understand the relevance of the event, that explains the context of the last three paragraphs. The fact that a very important and famous TV journalist, that is one of the best paid in a national television whose workers do suffer bad salaries because of a strong and long lasting crisis, has been openly judged by the oldest Latin journalistic association in the US because of "bad journalistic practices", is of course very relevant, specially in a news service like Wikinews where the quality and respect for the journalistic profession is patent. May be is not the kind of "easy" news that we read on the front page, partially investigative (but all facts real and demonstratrated). However, f there is a trace of "free journalism" in Wikinews we have to be able to help to spread also that kind of news. ----FiloActual (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I took care of merging the history of the old article and new article.
To move a page, there should be a dropdown menu at the right side of the tool bar at the top of the page.
It surprises me, off hand, that the only change made to the article was renaming it. Hopefully I'll get to take a look at it sometime in the next few hours; we'll see. (I'm in the midst of my... third review of the day? Something like that.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is not stubbornness at all :-) Just I made sure that direct sources to the new show accurate date, and that the sources indirectly talking about the context -which in this case is very important - also are specifically describing those facts. RTVE's correspondents are extremely high paid, and there is a source in the Spanish press that relates directly to Almudena's annual salary, around 200.000 euros. I think that many good journalists with a better understanding of our good practices in the US could be able to do that job for a troubled national broadcast such as RTVE without the need of getting paid so much. Also the text cited in the news is, according to a press release from a journalistic association, "to be known", to be spread". There is no problem citing that text, when citing and showing direct access to the original source at the official websites of the journalistic association. I don't have any problems nor issues changing the article, but I don´t see yet why it should be changed, it has a neutral POV describing the facts.--FiloActual (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the lede mentions just one date, in February. Either the focus took place in February, in which case the article isn't fresh; or something else is the focus, and the focus should be what the lede talks about and gives the date of; or the date given is wrong. So at the very least something is awry there. --Pi zero (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a mistake from my side... :-) The date on the references and official sites is March 19th --FiloActual (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I was reading your last review numbered 3341195. I do not understand your proposal. It is impossible to present the facts "creating willingly" a "contradiction" of the event, a kind of journalistic contra natura -contra the facts. The event that is being reported, and upon which the newsworthiness is based, is about a condemnation because of false accusations. That condemnation takes place after a journalistic association takes care of the evidences presented by both sides. The result is described, and exposed. Well, this is it. A prestigious journalistic association, founded in 1967, publicly asks to RTVE, a foreign company in the US, "to dismiss the correspondent and to remover her from the US". Why? Because of offensive insulting plus false accusations paradoxically against the director who rebuilds the history of the Spanish immigration in the US. The event is that. It is not our mission to change the facts, but to inform about them. I really don´t see that the article has a lack of neutrality. It is in fact neutral. There are no judgments. When we read that "some correspondents are the best paid of RTVE", we are giving a source that verifies it. When it reads that Ariza is "among the best paid", is also there. When we say that RTVE is going through terrible economical problems, who is lying when talking about Spain, a country with a 23% unemployment rate or more during the last 5 years...? If tomorrow the United Nations issues an official report about something wrong in, let's say, Scotland, that's the event. No matter if we like it or not. We may like it, we may not. But the "event" is that the United Nations issued some conclusions about Scotland, and we will quote them, cite them, make a report about them, in order to inform about it. We are in that situation. I think it was a little bit too late for you to carry ahead the review tonight, and if we take care of this tomorrow reviewing, citing and completing the thing, we can get an important piece of true journalism. If something is important in Wikinews is that it is a free, for me in the sense of "independent", source of news. We can, and we have to also, go where other news agencies and newspapers will not take the step just to inform, because of corporative protectionism. For instance, EFE, the Spanish government news agency will never inform about the fact that an important, too well paid, famous journalist such as Ariza has created that kind of scandalous situation, because they will protect the image of RTVE at all cost, no matter what happens. What they want is to hide it and to stop it of being known, thus of being reported. We are just reporting it neutrally. That's why Wikinews is important, and should be something else than an academy for beginners, which is also important of course, but at all not the only reason why Wikinews exist. I will get up later than you in a few hours, but as soon as I am there I will see the changes and start collaborating. But I think at this point is your turn to round the piece before I get up. ;-) Please review the references and you will see all there is just related to the events. --FiloActual (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course I can see there is no collaboration on your side to "bring " the article to your personal POV on the matter, that seems to be considered the POV of Wikinews. After trying to bring that position as close to your POV as possible, the result is "I don't want to publish that new because I don't like it the way is done and I don't want the facts" and at the same time "I don't want to collaborate" in getting it done. If someone is judge by a court, and is found guilty, this is the event, no matter what Brian McNeil things. That is something you could do at "Brian McNeil Newspaper" if you create that news-desk. Those who made that conclusions cannot call all the journalist in the world, who eventually control Wikinews, for instance, imposing their criteria, to let them re-judge the subject, just in case they can "do it better" than the what they did. That's apparently what is happening here. You are compromising Wikinews independence and turning it into your "own" news service. If other collaborators do not find out honestly to reach "your conclusions", then you should try to show what do you mean by editing yourself a bit the thing. You are just putting barriers constantly to stop the article being published, no matter the newsworthiness of it. Also, you are trying to "deform" the nature of the new: if a journalistic association makes that statement after reviewing the evidences talking to both parts, you cannot start doubting that "where are Ariza's evidences...?" Well, you are just not accepting the event: the event, no matter if you like it or not: is that the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics of New York has found that conclusions after "fase accusations" and ask to RTVE to dismiss and take the US corresponde out of the country. Those are the news, we are trying to report them in case you let someone do it or help doing so. Also you loose too much time trying to give lessons to everyone, not considering that probably you are dealing with different journalists that do not share your apparently too personal and "own" way to control a theoretically free and independent news service. Also, you are not taking in account -which demonstrates that your are not familiar with investigative reporting- that probably Ariza and RTVE are at all not interested in "giving opinions" about those facts, because after acting, according to the conclusions of ACE, so bad in her position, the last thing she want is to start talking about it helping it to be known and commented. So for her and RTVE the best is to put as much silence as possible, and it seems that this is also the case here. Finally, you cannot pretend to substitute the authority of a journalistic association, deforming the reality that conform the noticeable facts. And the facts are, if you like it or not: "RTVE's US correspondent gets condemnation after stating fase accusations". Regarding other not understandable comments of your production: "the article situates Ariza under a bad image." This is not true: the conclusions after a judgement of her doings situate Ariza under a bad image: the things she did, and not we reporting them. We, journalists, are not untouchable, and there is for some estrange reason in journalists a kind of "will to power" exercising the profession. For instance, Ariza super too highly paid -as the proofs show and demonstrate- states false accusations and offensive insulting clearly abusing her position, and we cannot report it, even when a journalistic association of recognized prestige is asking to RTVE she to be deported out of the US. On the other hand there is something called Wikinews from a foundation to open up the news service, and in the end there is a person who controls the news service, you, and who imposes POVs to everything. And who, instead of helping providing that POV, just try at all cost to avoid the reporting of the facts. You are just blocking the reporting of the facts. If someone has so much power here at Wikinews as to control what is published and what is not published, then should have at the same time the obligation to show what is that "way" that kind of new based on those facts should be written. --FiloActual (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your explanation: "The tone of the article itself is, essentially, "X condemned Y because Y did bad things" instead of "X condemned Y, accusing Y of doing bad things". Y's guilt is presented as fact." This is completely wrong. Totally. This is false: "X condemned Y because Y did bad things". It is not the journalistic association who should be reported of accusing Y, it is the filmmaker who accused Ariza presenting evidences, and it is then "X condemned Y because of the facts and evidences presented by Z(the filmmaker)". Not because of "bad things". Because of the evidences. If you can do it better just do it, but do not block the reporting of the facts.--FiloActual (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@FiloActual: I've already explained in my review comments what is needed and why. You're arguing that your analysis of the situation is "right", and as I explained, whether or not it's "right" is the wrong question. --Pi zero (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikinews is not your property. Blocking facts being reported is not among the targets of a free and independent news service. You are not providing any help to show "what is needed" by "illuminating" us, poor beginners, with your wise and inmutable edition.--FiloActual (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry my explanations aren't making sense to you. I'm most interested in finding ways to explain Wikinews neutrality that come across clearly to newcomers. --Pi zero (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I made as many changes as I can to the article. Honestly is the moment for you to clarify "what is needed" showing how to manage reporting those facts. I, as others attending this situation, am very interested in understanding you. But it does not help to block the report instead of helping showing what are you talking about.--FiloActual (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

how to update a news article ?

First of all thanks for such tireless work, moderating so quickly and leaving behind valuable suggestions :). I also have a question, Is it possible to update a news. If in the following days there are updates and important developments, can we edit the news article like a wikipedia page or should we preserve the first version and add updates in a modular way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tilakdp (talkcontribs) 12:19, 21 March 2015

@Tilakdp: There are strong limits on what can be done to change an article after publication, and there are also techniques for updates.
  • Substantive changes to an article are only allowed for the first 24 hours after publication. Anything big enough to change the focus requires a fresh article. If we realize, before publication, that there may be significant changes within the 24-hour horizon, we tag it from the start as breaking news — the proper meaning of "breaking news" is, it's changing in real time so you shouldn't assume the article will stay the same after you've read it. (I wince when I hear the term "breaking" used by some TV reporter to describe something that's obviously not going to change anytime soon; it seems they don't really understand the term and are saying it because it makes the news sound sexier to draw in more viewers.) The most common use of breaking is for a disaster where the death toll is likely to rise within the 24-hour horizon; we also try to avoid writing a specific death toll into the headline in such cases, since we don't like to change headlines after publication if we can avoid it.
  • Assuming there's a development that can be a focus for a new article, though, follow-up articles can cite an earlier article — one does that in a "Related news" section using {{wikinews}}, rather than in the "Sources" section using {{source}} — and then freely reuse text from the earlier article without having to change it at all. That is, there are no copyright concerns because the Wikinews license allows you to reuse Wikinews material any way you want as long as you cite the earlier article; and this also makes review easier, because we've already verified that material. In this way we can incrementally build up quite a meaty article with lots of background. Once an update article has been published, we can also, in cases where it's particularly appropriate, add a forward reference from the older article using {{update}}.
--Pi zero (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Accredited Journalist

Hi Pi. Congratulations for "our" last work. I did learn indeed about neutral POV a lot! Unfortunately it was too arduous, but satisfactory final result at least. Now is for me the moment to ask you how to be an Accredited Reporter, I want to move to the next level. Let me know please the steps to put those strips on my shoulder :-) I want to make original reporting and interviews also, more creative material. --FiloActual (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@FiloActual: Although I'm not clear on quite what your relationship with the stuff you cover is, it's always seemed fairly clear to me you're quite emotionally invested in it. (Actually, I need to ask you about that; but I'll raise that issue elsewhere.) I don't get the sense you could do objective OR on it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there is people much, much more emotional about Wikinews than those who use the plain references to create content. We are going to have problems as you can see here. Without petition of deletion, without respect to references, without respecto of the facts: a news "source" that cannot respect facts is completely a fraud. The deletion of the news at the Spanish channel shows how works Spain, and why corruption is at its highest point in the Spanish country.--FiloActual (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't really tell anything from that. A typical demonstration of the problem of translation between languages. I can see it was deleted, and I can see the message describing the reason for deletion — in Spanish. Se ha detectado posible caso de uso de los proyectos Wikimedia a favor de Artur Balder. I can work out what each of the individual words means, but then I feel I'm looking at a standard phrase and some aspects of the overall meaning escape me. And when I run it through an automatic translator, I feel I'm no closer to the meaning of the whole than when I was reading it without. So I honestly can't tell what's going on there. It isn't giving off emotional vibes, for me, but I don't pretend to know, merely guess. --Pi zero (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you can believe someone who understands Spanish, I can give you the sense. The sense is, absolutely, nonsense. The "administrator" and bureaucrat at Wikinews is one of the "big guys" at the Spanish Wikipedia -of course, not identified-, who is there an administrator since 2005... That said, he deletes the article without discussions being he, Taichi, and another administrator of Wikinews, Ezarate, the same person... because "possibly" Artur Balder 'is using Wikimedia projects for his own benefit'. First of all: no discussion for deletion. 2nd: "may be" (may be... :-)) someone is using Wikimedia projects for his own advantage, which is a ridiculous statement: the news are based on true facts. It is the most corrupted form of institutional spanishness, and typical of Spain and its culture. In order to protect the one who got the condemnation, that "administrator" simulates the other one gets some benefit out of it. Period. Investigation at Wikimedia Foundation will start on Monday via legal. I told you: we are doing real journalism here at the English Wikinews, and Wikipedia in English works clean in general. The Spanish chapter is highly corrupted and controlled by a bunch of persons who are obviously taken advantage and misusing the projects. What can we do from here...? There must be a way to contact the Foundation from English Wikinews. I know that you now had access to the case "in-depth" --FiloActual (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah! On the actual translation of the reason, what I was missing — and seems obvious now that you point it out — was "for the benefit of Artur Balder". Thanks.
The individual projects, like English Wikinews or Spanish Wikinews, keep their editorial control independent of each other, and independent of the Foundation. If it became appropriate to escalate things, the Foundation wouldn't be the next step.
I see you did leave a note on the user talk page of the admin who deleted the article. My poor Spanish skills prevent me from confidently judging the tone of your note. In this situation the appropriate sort of note would a polite inquiry. The stated reason for deletion, in the deletion log entry which you link to, seems fairly straightforward; it's a class of administrative action that legitimately comes up from time to time, though hopefully not often. The thing to do in such a situation is definitely to start by politely asking the deleting admin about it, without assuming anything nefarious. The range of possible explanations is so vast that there's really nothing to be accomplished by making any assumption of bad faith about it. --Pi zero (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I was extremely polite. And I think you could leave a message in English asking for further information. They are not answering. By the way, if Wikinews Es is independent, it means it is "their property" de facto and no one can say or control anything?? Sounds creepy.--FiloActual (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Then which one is the next step if WMF is not in control of Wikimedia News Spanish? --FiloActual (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Catan sets a date for its King's coronation - Deletion

Hi, I have a problem with my article being called a hoax. I am reporting on Micronational News Articles and this was one that flagged an interest. Could you please advise where it might be a hoax? I made it unbiased and fair. Many Thanks Johnatmicronews (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll take another look when I get a chance. --Pi zero (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Johnatmicronews (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Archive published news

Hi. After how long are the news published to be archived and when will be possible not to edit them any more? Thanks.--FiloActual (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Substantive changes are only allowed for the first 24 hours after publication. After that, if there's an actual problem, we would have to add a {{correction}} notice to the article. Little stuff is still allowed after the 24-hour horizon, like typo fixes that don't change the meaning and some kinds of format fixes and other peripheral stuff; but after seven days or more, the article is removed from the main page listing and fully protected, and then you have to request the edits on the article talk page (best to use template {{editprotected}}) rather than make them yourself. When our output is high enough we fully protect after seven days, but we like to keep at least ten articles on the main page as a sampling of what we do, so we wait longer than seven days if necessary to keep ten articles unprotected. WN:Archive policy. --Pi zero (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


My account was compromised during my absence - please enable an indefinite block to prevent further damage to wiki projects. Thanks for collaborating. --BScMScMD (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC) P.S.: Enable an indefinite block on my Wikibooks account as well!


Hello, I changed long ago Havang tot Havang(nl), I did give free the account Havang, gave away my password at the same occasion. So I cannot log in with username Havang and not log-in with that foolish new username somebody created. If you do not remove the discussion page, please, remove my mail-adress from that foolish account, I can't. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Havang(nl): Are you saying email to that account goes to you? If so, and if it doesn't also go to anyone else, I believe you can tell the system to generate a new random password and email it to you. That gives you access again to the account. --Pi zero (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:National Basketball Association

On this change ([1]), it's simply because the interwikis links are now on wikidata [2]. --Mazuritz (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I gathered that. However, there's this odd and imho over-hasty reflex to remove local data merely because it's also on Wikidata. I think that's harmful to the local projects; removing local data merely because it's present on Wikidata is inherently unstable and routinely harmful to local control (therefore also to local morale) and to local quality. A far more gainful employment of Wikidata on local projects would be to monitor discrepancies between Wikidata and local pages as they arise, and offer local editors with the option of redressing those discrepancies by any of several perhaps-customized courses of action, which would likely include changing the local data, propagating local data to Wikidata, noting (locally?) the reason why the discrepancy is allowed to stand (for future reference), and in some cases more elaborate measures involving other local projects. --Pi zero (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Hello. I saw, you made some changes on the article I just created. As I am new here, I have no idea if I did it correct or not. Please help me guiding WikiNews. Thanks
Acagastya (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Acagastya. Good to meet you. I'll try to help. The one thing I can't do is get heavily involved in writing the article, since I need to remain independent of its authorship in order to review it (that's described in the first pillar at WN:PILLARS). --Pi zero (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I just need some guidance to get familiar here. I am familiar with WP, but I don't know anything here!
Don't we have Adopt a user here?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Imho, Wikinews is an awesome project. Most of the time lately there aren't many folks here, though. We have some plans for the future, but meanwhile, like I said, I'll try to help. :-)
WN:PILLARS is a good overview to start with. WN:WRITE is meant to be a quick intro to writing an article. Ultimately there's the Wikinews:Style guide, which is deliberately kept short (by the standards of such documents) so it can be read in its entirety.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I should probably be mentioning {{Howdy}}, which is automatically put on your user talk page when you create an account :-). --Pi zero (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My changes to the article.

Were any of my changes to the article good? Did you keep any of them?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@PaulBustion88: Your edits all look like improvements to me, and I haven't undone any of them. The only difficulty was that the last one was after I'd started my review. I do realize the {{under review}} tag can be missed; we've tried to make it fairly prominent to minimize that problem, but still. --Pi zero (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Change to article about UN Gaza report by me.

Hello, could you review the change I made to this article? [3] Paul Bustion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaulBustion88 (talkcontribs) 05:33, 3 May 2015‎

Hi. There's a catch — because news is a snapshot in time, our archive policy kicks in 24 hours after publication and then doesn't allow further substantive changes to an article. (We so need better software to provide context-sensitive guidance on this project; I'm actually working on that, but it's slow going.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

My edits to the Australian deportation article

Hello, did you like my edits to the article about Australia expelling foreign workers?[4] --PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, PaulBustion88.
The edits do look like an improvement, content-wise. That article, though, was never completed (it only has one source corroborating the focal event, whereas two mutually independent sources are required; actually, we recommend finding and reading the multiple sources before starting to write), and the article is now no longer fresh. It would need a wholesale refocus in order to become viable again. An article like that eventually gets tagged as {{abandoned}}, which is why we're not up to our ears in articles that didn't make it to publication.
One of the difficult things about a news wiki is that the opportunities to make smallish contributions to someone else's article are kind of limited, because of the comparatively narrow time window involved. When Wikinews was first started, folks imagined a collaboration model similar to Wikipedia; but it's turned out that most news articles are written by one person. When I first came to Wikinews I made little copyedits to recently published articles, and then one day I set about to fix an article that had been not-ready'd on review, only to be told by the reviewer, after all the trouble I'd gone to, that the article was no longer fresh. I stuck with the project, of course; truthfully I've always had great admiration for journalists.
When I finally decided to try my hand at writing an article, I spent a while searching news feeds for a story that I was interested enough in to write it up for Wikinews. After a day or two (as I recall) of finding only stories that just didn't grip me, I hit on one that I instantly fell in love with; nothing pretentious, but I really wanted to share it with others. And then I actually had to recheck news feeds for several hours before a second independent source turned up. The result was "Robbery suspect flees on riding mower". (Alas, it would have been a stronger article if I'd thought to find a file image on Commons of a riding mower. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Indiana story

Gov. Pence did sign the legislation for the needle exchange program and sources were added for verification.Crtew (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@Crtew: I hope to tackle that article when I finish my current review (which, as it happens, I started maybe five minutes before you submitted). I'm in triage mode with the review queue; we can and will lose some articles that can't be reviewed in time. I mean not to let yours get missed that way. --Pi zero (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on editing the Indiana governor story. Our previous start for this can be deleted. It's called "Indiana governor responds to an HIV outbreak". At this time, it's a file in newsroom.Crtew (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
We usually handle those by redirecting them to the published article. The older page has significant edit history, after all. I've done that. --Pi zero (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help with the general election article, Pi zero. I appreciate it. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 22:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

My editing at the New Zealand flag article and in general

Hello. Was my edit here, [5], ok? Is my editing here in general so far ok? On English wikipedia, simple English wikipedia, and English wiktionary I have been banned and my editing has been trashed, and one editor said she did not think I was capable of editing well. I want to make sure my editing here is at least acceptable and that I'm not being disruptive in any way. So if you feel I'm causing problems do not hesitate to let me know. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@PaulBustion88: That particular edit was not unreasonable. Nothing had been said in the article, after all, about why NZ might want a new flag. If one were really going to go into the rationale, perhaps with a small paragraph at some point in the inverted pyramid, I imagine one might also have mentioned (since this is mentioned in a source, iirc) that the current flag of NZ is very similar to the current flag of Australia. One thing about news, you have to do your best and move on, because the moment moves on, leaving no time for the sort of endless fine-tuning that is, frankly, the primary means by which Wikipedia pursues quality. Sometimes we do especially well, and that's why we have Category:Featured article.
I'm sorry to hear you've been having problems on some of the other sister projects. A few general remarks:
  • We've had some folks who came to us after getting in trouble on sister projects, who became quite useful members of the Wikinews community. So we're open to folks making a fresh start here. Also we try to help folks who are trying to climb up our notoriously steep initial learning curve, as long as they're sincerely trying to be helpful. We're a small project, though, and our published output is quite serious with a real impact on the world, so if someone starts making trouble, we don't have patience with that.
  • Because of the importance of personal reputation in the functioning of Wikinews (cf. WN:Never assume), we have no tolerance here for sockpuppetry. If you have multiple accounts, declare them, choose one as your account to use when editing on Wikinews, and mark the others with {{doppelganger}}.
--Pi zero (talk) 11:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I technically have multiple accounts, but they were created for other wikis, I don't believe I ever used the other accounts here. They are user:FDR, user:RJR3333, and user:PaulBustion87. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I put tags on those, to avoid possible future confusion. You're right, none of them have ever edited on en.wn. --Pi zero (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

An editor on wikipedia complained about my edit summary, so please remove it

[6] --PaulBustion88 (talk) 09:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've hidden the edit summary. --Pi zero (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


What are the notability criteria for a news article here?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 22:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: The term you're looking for is newsworthiness. There's an essay about it at WN:Newsworthiness. --Pi zero (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
I have made an article, please check it!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 00:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Human trafficking article

Was this edit, [7], ok?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@PaulBustion88: The first of your two sentences was quite close to the source sentence (and on top of that, both were the sentence just before that direct quote). There's a little about this at WN:PILLARS (the fifth pillar, about using your own words). We've been wanting for years to write a really good essay on distance from source, but we've never figured out a really effective way to do it; I had an essay title I really liked, "How to use sources without plagiary", but so far I haven't got content that lives up to the title. --Pi zero (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I changed what I wrote to make it more different from the source, [8]. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Is it different enough from the source now?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Educational/class project editing "UOW"

It appears you have a class creating articles, due to the number of usernames with "UOW" (University of Wollongong?) in them. i.e. ThesocialscribeUOW (t · c · b), VizimaUOW (t · c · b) Uowmlb (t · c · b), KristaUOW (t · c · b) etc! P.s. If you reply, it may be better to 'ping' me at my Wikipedia talkpage here. I don't come to Wikinews much. 220 of Borg (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems like if you don't come here much, it's not all that urgent, right? So perhaps just pinging you here would do? (I don't think, btw, linking from here to a user page on a different sister produces a notice at the other sister?)
Yes, we have a couple of university journalism professors sending students our way this semester, one in Australia and one in the US. The fall semester is just ending at the University of Wollongong, I believe, with an attendant flurry of submissions. --Pi zero (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I didn't get a ping from your link to my WP page. Assuming from above you have an Aussie connection, perhaps Wikinews needs an article about Alan Bond (of America's Cup fame) who is in a bad way after very recent heart surgery. Maybe you need to keep an obituary handy, just in case? 220 of Borg (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk back

I modified the words, what else to do?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 20:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Scuffing up", by changing a word here and there, doesn't affect the overall structure of the text at all.
With really well-done synthesis, each sentence of the synthesis is apt to contain information scattered about the sources, and each sentence in the sources is apt to contain information that gets scattered to distance points in the synthesis. --Pi zero (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, whenever Duke and Duchess comment/ monkey's name is changed, the freshness will come?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 09:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A complete refocus of the article would be wanted, presumably, as well as (frankly) a complete rewrite from the ground up to shake off all the old copyright problems. --Pi zero (talk) 11:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Appreciation



Notice of Appreciation

For your fantastic, relentless contributions to this service, which are on a scale no other user seems able to match these days; for endeavouring to improve my articles through copyedit and review, amongst those of countless other users. I'm sure they appreciate your support too. I undoubtedly do. --Rayboy8 (talk) (contributions) 23:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, gosh. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

My edit here

[9] Is there anything wrong with my change here? PaulBustion88 (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

No. Good catch on then/than. Though that article has no future, imho; I don't really think there's any way to turn it into something that could be publishable. --Pi zero (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Changing away from source

In my edit here, [10], I tried to change away from what the source said. Is this better?PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Texas tornado article

Hello. In the Texas tornado article, [11], I added one more source, and made some other changes. Are the changes ok?PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Sheriff article

Is this article,[12], about how the Sheriff of Milwaukee recently attacked the President ok?PaulBustion88 (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Time stamp

I also wanted to know,

  • if I submit for review, will the freshness vanish if the article is reviewed late?
  • if the event takes place where date is 13 May, and I live in a place where it is 14th, what values I need to fill in any of the date parameters?

aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 23:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

  • An article needs to be fresh at the moment it is published. If it doesn't get reviewed in time, it goes stale waiting on the queue. That does happen; I think every veteran Wikinewsie has at some time or other lost an article they wrote that way. (Even I, who rarely have time to write with all the other things I try to do here, have lost one that way.)

    Right now, of course, we have a huge glut of articles on the queue, due to the University of Wollongong students, whose weekly class seems to be on Wednesday, because the biggest crowd of submissions from this semester is waiting for me when I wake up on Wednesday morning (my time zone atm is UTC-4).

    Note, however, articles don't necessarily get reviewed in the order submitted. I, for one, typically start by not-ready'ing the ones I notice have something obviously badly wrong so they can be dequeued fairly quickly (and should be), and then of the remainder I often review the freshest first — because if I reviewed the oldest first I'd just be minimizing the freshness of our published articles. (It's even more complicated than that: for example, I tend to boost the priority of articles that have been resubmitted after revision, since one would like all that effort on everyone's part not to go to waste. And sometimes there are other special circumstances that change the order I review in.)

  • Wikinews keeps UTC. There's a gadget you can activate on your Special:Preferences, under User Interface Gadgets, called UTCLiveClock, that puts a running UTC clock in the upper right corner of your browser panel.
--Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Relatives editing

Hello. Can relatives of mine also edit the same articles I edit, or is that against site policies? Because my father is a better writer than I am so I was thinking maybe he could edit what I wrote to make it look nicer. Is that allowed or would that be considered meat puppetry? PaulBustion88 (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@PaulBustion88: They should have their own account, separate from yours, and should declare the relationship on their user page (conversly, you should declare the relationship on yours). There should never be more than one person allowed to edit Wikinews from the same account. With those precautions, it should be fine since you're both writing, not reviewing each other's work. --Pi zero (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I declared my relation to him on his user page, and now I will on mine. PaulBustion88 (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

My article about King Salman

[13] I stopped writing what I was writing because my mother was upset with me so I had to take a break from writing. I had already read the article I used as a source and I'm going to find another one and write more but I was distracted by her being upset. I'm going to complete the article by the end of tomorrow. PaulBustion88 (talk) 05:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I've made article long enough and incorporated all the main important points necessary to be stated now. Does it look good enough?

[14] PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

What happens if...

...I submit an article for review and then I make an edit?
Any harm in it?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It happens all the time. Check to see if a reviewer has marked the article as {{under review}} — it looks like this:
— but otherwise, go ahead. You should of course try to minimize how often that becomes necessary; some people have this frustrating habit, when an article is not-ready'd, of resubmitting before they start trying to fix problems, rather than after; and if you ever do a really major update, such as refocusing an article for freshness, you should probably remove the article from the review queue first (change {{review}} to {{develop}}) and then resubmit when you're done. But, sure, you can still edit it once you've submitted it. --Pi zero (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Article about Bill Oesterle

[15] This article is scheduled to be deleted tomorrow, I did NOT create it, but I am improving it. Could it be given a little more time? I think I could make it publishable. PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

@PaulBustion88: It needs a fresh focus. But it's clearly not abandoned, since you've been honestly working on it, so yes, I removed the tag. --Pi zero (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi (sorry for my english), I'm a French sysop on Wikinews and I don't know where to send my message.

In the French version, the "easyPeerReview" gadget uses the English version to run, but it no longer works since we have removed the "editor" group and replaced it with "facilitator".

In the English code, there "if (wgAction ===" view "&& 0 && wgUserGroups.toString wgNamespaceNumber === (). IndexOf (" editor ")> -1) {"

We need to add "facilitator".

If you can not make this change, we will need to recreate the code on our version. Thank you. --SleaY (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@SleaY: I'll try to take a look sometime in the next few hours.
My long-term hope is to build a replacement for the old EzPR gadget using my dialog tools (the sort of software the Foundation should have spent their money on instead of Flow :-), but that will be a while yet. --Pi zero (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@SleaY: I think I've done it. --Pi zero (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Still doesn't work, but I think the problem comes from elsewhere. --SleaY (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Football box

There, F.C._Barcelona_wins_La_Liga_2014-2015, it goes to bottom by adding the football template. How to fix that?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I don't understand those boxes well. I'll have to see what I can figure out. Btw, at first look, the new lede reads well. --Pi zero (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I have added the comments. However, "why" can't be answered. So, is it okay?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 19:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Story

Hi Pi zero,

If possible, could you please retrieve the story 'Namurian internet service provider Digicel blocks Facebook' which was deleted today so that I have a copy of the text? Alternatively a screen shot of the text and headline will doǃ

Many thanks MaddicookUOW (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@MaddicookUOW: Is it enough to restore it temporarily, or are you requesting it be mothballed in your user space? (If you want it mothballed, I should do a check for latent copyvio, as a matter of procedure.) Anyway, for now, here it is. Nauruan internet service provider Digicel blocks Facebook --Pi zero (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

F.C. Barcelona wins La Liga 2014-2015

About to get stale. I guess, it will pass. I did all that was required. Please review it.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 17:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


  • It's silly to even say this is long overdue, because, um, it's so very long overdue!
I, Bddpaux, award you the Copyeditor's barnstar for your tireless work and all around general greatness at all things journalistic in nature! Hang in there!--Bddpaux (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 16:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


Giorgio Chiellini, would not play in UEFA CL final. I wanted to add this in the article I will submit. This is the link as well. So would a link, which is old, be able to qualify for the use in article?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 15:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: As long as there are two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focus, there can also be other sources that may be older. --Pi zero (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

obama just reported on stricter gun rules

--Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Archiving the edit?

Hello Admin! I wanted to know why F.C. Barcelona wins UEFA Champions League 2014/15 wasn't archived? I could still edit it. And, I added a comment to check it. Is it any king of bug, or something?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Our output is very slow atm. We generally delay archiving articles in times of low output to keep at least ten unarchived article on the main page. --Pi zero (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay. So, then also, I am not supposed to make changes? Or I am (if they are helpful)? Moreover, if they are acrhived, they won't be visible on main page?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 18:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I should be clearer. There are two different meanings of "archived". The archive policy kicks in 24 hours after publication, so that no further substantive changes are permitted. However, the article isn't fully protected, and marked with an {{archive}} tag, until at least a week after publication, and sometimes longer.

Don't make substantive changes to any of the currently published articles. Little corrections that don't change the meaning are okay. --Pi zero (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Need help!

Example Article: F.C. Barcelona wins Copa del Rey 2014-2015.
Template used over there: {{translation note|{{w|Copa del Rey}}|en|Spanish language|King's Cup}}.
Query: What to do for Copa America? It is the Spanish and Portuguese for America Cup. How should I add the template? I made the rough article in my sandbox, so I can edit it quickly, and publish as soon as the event completes.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 08:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Where Copa del Rey appeared in that article, I figured to add a superscript with mouseover explaining that the English translation is "King's Cup". We had created the {{translation note}} template a while back to cover general situations of that sort (as opposed to the more specific situation covered by {{translated quote}}), so I went to page {{translation note}} to read the documentation explaining what the different parameters do, and cobbled together something that seemed reasonable: the thing to which the superscript is to be attached is the first parameter, {{w|Copa del Rey}}; the superscript visible on the page is the second parameter, en; the target to which the superscript is wikilinked (so that clicking the superscript goes there) is the third parameter, Spanish language; and the mouseover, to be prefixed by the superscript label and a colon, is the fourth parameter, King's Cup. Put them all together, you get Copa del Rey ((en))Spanish language: ‍Kings' Cup. If you want to do something similar for "Copa America", you just have to decide what you want to drop in for each of those parameters. --Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Article: Chile knock out defending champions Uruguay from Copa America 2015 (not yet published)
Scenario:Event commenced at 2330 hours at 24th June (UTC). And finished at early hours on 25th June (UTC).
Query: So what will be the date (It might sound ridiculous, and a homework question, but today, when I was going to park, I thought about this) 24th or 25th?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 16:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My approach is to report the date on which the event occurred in the time zone where it occurred (but then, in choosing whether to describe it as "today" or "yesterday", use the date on Wikinews when it's published; so for example if it takes place on Tuesday where it happens, and then it's published on Tuesday on Wikinews, that's "today" even though it may by then be Wednesday in the time zone where it happened). --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay! But the time of when the event started, or when it completed?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 16:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Heh. If I'm the reviewer who reviews it, I'll have to keep an eye out for that. Typically, in a case where the event is "team wins game", that happens at the moment the game ends. --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Lede problem

Sir, this article "Messi" saves life in Nigeria came in notice on Sunday. But, if you read it, the event took place on Saturday. Now that is really confusing, and I don't know how should I frame the lede. It took me 3 lines instead of 2 to explain that thing. But, still it is not so clear. Can you please take care of it? There are many not-so-well-explained-figures in the lede.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I might convery it in 2 lines, but still, we need it polish the lede.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Pi zero/Archive 9".