Ssr, 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! Adambro 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this article. We hope to see more contributions from you in the future. --SVTCobra 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for helping me with the formatting. I will try my best in the future as I get used to the guidelines. --Ssr 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Welcome II


Since you are becoming active round here again, I thought I'd drop you a copy of the modern welcome message. Should have links to all the key stuff:

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.

Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! --Ssr (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Blackout article


I assessed the article not-ready in its current form. The blackout is really a fascinating development. See my review comments on the article talk page. (And with that, I really have to get to bed; it's the wee hours of the morning where I am.) --Pi zero (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • I'd like to go over this for review, but I'm not all that confident/happy with using Google Translate on Russian-language reportage. Have you seen any other English-language sources which back up the majority of points in the now-much-improved article?
I may come back on translated quotes, as I've done for other articles I'll look at how Google Translate works on the original, and ask the translator; this frequently pulls up more appropriate synonyms or turns of phrase. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Currently, there are lots of English sources, for your choice: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Russian+Wikipedia There is also a Russia Today English language source within the article. --Ssr (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Yep, noticed the RT source, it's a matter of maintaining submitter/reviewer independence that had me suggesting you select whichever you feel most-comprehensively covers the salient points of the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I've probably done enough to disqualify myself from review on this. And, I need you to re-check the quoted statement very carefully. Some of it was pretty poor (English) grammar, and I'm sure the Russian grammar is just fine; so it's a matter of verifying it is near-exact in the meaning with my edits (oh, the perils of translation). I'm going to look for a prettier quote template, and look for someone in IRC to double check and publish. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's top of the main page. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article needs present its information in a different order; I believe that needs to be cleared up before a reviewer can try to check other things about the article. See my review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

After frustrating delays, I made a concerted effort this afternoon (my time, UTC-5) to do a full review of the article, and ran up against sourcing and language-barrier problems. Honestly, if I were able to cope with a pile of Russian sources unaided, I'd have simply pulled in the sources from the Russian version of the article. The difficulty of reviewing from non-English sources is something that's been frustrating to us for as along as I've been on English Wikinews. I've written fairly extensive review comments about the combination of difficulties now facing the article. --Pi zero (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I have answered at collaboration page. --Ssr (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ssr. Regarding your recent submission of the exclusive interview with Dmitry Erokhin, I hope you have the notes/ audio or video recording of the interview emailed to scoop@wikinewsie.org. You can also add it to the talk page of the article. Besides, there are some words, which challanges our neutral point of view policy. I will see if I can edit the article in a couple of hours. By the way, did you translate the interview from Russian to English using a translation tool like Google Translator? And,will it be possible to provide the original Russian question and answers as well? (We have a {{translated quote}} template which we use in these situations).
acagastya 16:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

So, the questions were asked via Facebook messages? I do not know what is the procedure, may be a screenshot (but then, it can be called as invasion of privacy, but we need to verify it)
acagastya 17:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
No, the questions were asked via Russian Wikinews editor interface. Dmitry was answering directly there in Russian. The history of the dialogue can be viewed at history page of the original Russian Wikinews article. Dmitry was authorised with his Wikimedia SUL account and can confirm his identity personally by request if needed. --Ssr (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see several possible concerns here. The first item I'm listing here is clearly the biggest obstacle. (By Murphy's law, this has come up on a day when there are a bunch of other articles competing for review attention.)

  • The opening of the article needs to make clear, for a general reading audience, why this story has news relevance. This needs to be worked on; perhaps there is a solution, a way to present it so that it does feel like news to a general audience, but this needs to be found. If it comes across feeling like an item for a Wikimedian newsletter, that's a problem (the relevant passage, which I recall deeply frustrated you back in 2014, is WN:Newsworthiness#The Wikimedia exception).
  • Information on how the interview was conducted and how and where to verify it should be on the article talk page. That's why the {{interview}} template at the bottom of the article says "See the collaboration page for more details."
  • There should be no external links in the body of an article; wikilinks only.

--Pi zero (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • Well, we have a pretty wide range of coverage. We have plenty of latitude to cover news stories that the mainstream media (msm) have failed to cover properly (in fact, additional coverage to under-covered stories is something we're well suited for). We also allow "local" coverage, with the particular caveat that we need to be cautious of being perceived as a wikimedian newsletter (hence the "Wikimedia exception"). There isn't some stodgy requirement here about relating to a story that's currently in the big msm outlets (akin to Wikipedia's "notability"). But, take a couple of ridiculously extreme examples. On the high end, suppose we landed an interview with Hillary Clinton; this is not completely off the wall, as a former Wikinewsie who has kept in touch over the years did land an interview with Hillary Clinton last year (not for Wikinews; an interview for a commercial magazine). It's hard to imagine failing to ask her questions whose answers would satisfy relevance. On the low end, suppose someone went out on the streets, found a random person who would talk to them, and asked this person questions about their general eating habits, then submitted the result to us as an interview. The general eating habits of a semi-random person-on-the-street (only semi-random because it had to be someone who would agree to be interviewed) are almost certainly not relevant, in a news sense. Between these two extremes, some judgement is needed — which is why it took us years of practice and occasional community discussions before we were ready to write a nontrivial explanation of our newsworthiness criteria.

    What is needed here is to present the story as of interest to a general audience (not just a wikimedian audience), as best the story supports this sort of presentation. I don't have a sense of how well that can be done; I simply don't know how good a case can be made for the relevance of the story. Perhaps, once we can see what is the best case that can be made for its relevance, it will be clear — one way or the other — whether or not it is relevant. --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • External links are not banned altogether; sorry if that wasn't clear. They go in a separate section called External links, located below the Sources section (WN:SG#External links section). All sister projects afaik, including Wikipedias, dislike putting external links in the main text, preferring to set external links apart so that the reader is well-warned before clicking them that they lead out of the wikimedia sisterhood. --Pi zero (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Hi. Please see my review comments. Besides my frustration that I didn't get to the article sooner, I'm also not sure I've explained clearly what is needed. Please feel free to ask me questions; I will do my best to clarify. --Pi zero (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
    • Thank you. I feel this time the text is not going to be improved. It was started to be promoted out of Russian variant too early and with too little people involved in the process. But please be aware there will be further efforts to promote Wikimedia movement worldwide in such ways. Dmitry Erokhin has wide plans and also has notable experience. His expeditions are dedicated to Wikimedia, he collects material for Wikipedia and tries to use all posible instruments in all possible languages, and Wikinews are among these instruments. But next time I will try to have more backing from other people so I'm not in just solo negotiations on the affair I'm not generally solo responsible for. --Ssr (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

When original reporting ceases development without being published, we often move it to the reporter's userspace instead of deleting it. I've done so with this article; it is now at

User:Ssr/Russian Wikipedian and marathon runner Dmitry Erokhin makes test run to Morocco before running along entire Sakhalin Island

I felt at the time that this might have been put into a workable form for English Wikinews publication if it had gotten attention from someone with lots of (1) facility with en.wn newsworthiness standards, (2) proficiency in English, and (3) familiarity with the story — so they'd know what to say about the story to make it acceptable. I can see it might be difficult to get one person with lots of all three of these things at once. --Pi zero (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • So good texts/contributions are no more deleted forever. Thanks for the advice, next time I will show this information to other people such as Dmitry Erokhin and his companions from Wikimedia RU. This year he plans more runs: hard and lengthy Sakhalin one and at least one in some mountains. All dedicated to Wikipedia with promoting it among his readers/followers and press. Wikinews coverage is expected in all possible ways, as I said before. --Ssr (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Timing etc


Hi Ssr

I agree with you that at the current stage the review takes enormous amounts of time even for legitimate submissions.

Does complaining help? Doesn't it drive authors away?

To my knowledge, we have several solutions in mind:

  • Engage more people in sharing immediate feedback when a draft is created, so that its first review-that-is-done-a-day-or-two-later is more likely to be successful. (User:Gryllida/welcome a bit, started early this year).
    • This may also lead to recruitment of more reviewers, as people who provide such feedback can be more likely to be able to accomplish fact check.
  • Guide users by an adequate wizard (Help:Dialog, started by Pi zero several years ago).

I see that as constructive steps forward. What have you got in your mind, and what is your motivation here?

--Gryllida (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  • @Gryllida: Sorry for delay in replying and thank you for your comment. Complaining helps what? I see how authors are driven away by talks on stories about Tyumen and Notre-Dame. They, judging by these cases, seem to be disappointed with complexity of how things are done here. As for my motivation, first of all I wish to post here some original content, primarily about Wikimedia and Wikipedians (this is WIKI-NEWS). I have no great desire to duplicate regular news for which there are loads of professional news websites available (this is WIKI-NEWS). In the past I have posted some here, but from some moment I began to be kicked from here with this type of stories (in some cases, by lingering review and then deleting). I see how some other people suffer the same. Speaking on desired manner of governance, I can say that I support the current general policies of Russian Wikinews (which I also influenced), so it's easy to see the specimen. --Ssr (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I would be glad to help you write news about Wikimedia and Wikipedia in a bias-free way. They would also need to affect many people (internal newsletter style reports may face criticism from the reviewers here; ref. relevance). If you create a draft, or just link me to sources, I would be glad to quickly share with you my thoughts. Gryllida (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    *Everything* "may face criticism from the reviewers here". *Nothing* would be declared to be "in a bias-free way". I tried for years, I know. Thanks to Farhad, we are know the method of placing our English versions at Meta, and don't very much concerned of dealing with en-wn (which is anyway extremely hard to handle and energy-unworthy). --Ssr (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I would like to see where you guys are putting your English versions. Do you have a link? Gryllida (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
    We have a number now and more coming. It's like this: ru:Казанская вики-школа отчиталась о подготовке татароязычной интеллигенции XXI века—multilingual links at the top. --Ssr (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply