Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2017/December

ABANDONED? - It is impossible to get any work done around here

I am preserving here some of the information that I posted as edit summaries on articles that I just found out are scheduled for deletion. Instead of being left alone to try and improve articles, I am spending my time right now trying to figure which of my articles (some of which have been renamed seeral times), have been proposed for deletion and asking for them to be userified:


09:09, 6 November 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . Japanese Knotweed discovered on Google's Dublin docklands headquarters ‎ (I need those articles because their talk-pages are the the only up-to-date working instruction available on wikinews) (current)

09:05, 6 November 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . Ottawa narrows short list of Innovation Superclusters ‎ (userify please, again) (current)

09:05, 6 November 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . Travel from Canada to the United States continues to decline ‎ (When did all this happen? Looks like pretty much all my articles have been declared abandoned) (current)

09:02, 6 November 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . CMHC Canada's housing agency undergoes stress tests ‎ (came here to keep improving articles I wrote previously, but spending my time trying to save my previous work instead (userify please)) (current)

08:57, 6 November 2017 (diff | hist) . . (+11)‎ . . Buyers in Canada will soon require higher incomes to buy a home ‎ (need to preserve comments such as this : "There should not be facts in the article that aren't in the sources when the article is submitted") (current) --- Ottawahitech (talk) 09:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And, while I am posting here I see an IP posted a question to my talkpage (have not read it yet)! to do with this issue. PLEASE EVERYONE, I Aam just one person and my priority is/was to do some work on the articles I started working on, not to participate in unending discussion necessitated by the unfamiliar rules. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Which reminds me: Is there documentation anywhere explaining ABANDONED ARTICLES: when what who why and how? Ottawahitech (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see one of the reviewers has just reverted a request from me to userify an article I started which the same reviewer sent to ABANDONED-purgatgory earlier. It would be nice if instead the reviewer found time to answer my questions instead of creating make work for good-faith editors trying to participate? repeat question: Is there documentation anywhere explaining ABANDONED ARTICLES: when what who why and how?Ottawahitech (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC) please ping me[reply]
@Ottawahitech: Just to let you know, you marked an article abandoned which was edited earlier today. And the revert was for an article which had no meaningful content to use userified. It is still tagged abandoned. You might be looking for WN:ABANDON. By the way, there is not AGF on Wikinews.
15:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ottawahitech: I agree with you, but I'm afraid it is very hard to change the policy here as long as the project remains undercrowded. Currently there are only 2 active reviewers. De Wikischim (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cold wave in Canada and US

Currently, there is an extreme cold wave in both Canada and the US. This is a news item worth writing about. There must surely be enough sources available. It seems there is no corresponding article yet on Wikipedia. If Wikinews is fast enough, it can prove itself this time as a real news site. De Wikischim (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@De Wikischim: From time to time you say things that indicate you think we are somehow in competition with Wikipedia. We are not. They do not attempt to do what we do, and we do not attempt to do what they do. Above you also evidently suggest that somehow Wikinews needs to prove, through competition with Wikipedia, that it is a "real news site"; we don't need to prove it because we already are one, and if we did need to prove it, any comparison/contrast with Wikipedia would be irrelevant since Wikipedia is unequivocally not a news site. --Pi zero (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I am inside that cold wave. It would be great to see it covered. --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]