text:
Thread:Comments:Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales announces move of Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem/Importance of News ?/reply (4)

Can you read the topic? "Importance of News"

Importance means: Does this have something to do with the present or future? Does it reflect any bigger change in front of us? Does it explain something or call for action?

The vast majority of the world votes against the lunatic Trump and you think, you covered the story by showing a foto of a drunken president of Guatemala who is going to follow the US crooks idea of moving to Jerusalem.

You cite an article about some remote tiny nothing country and call it "significant". One single country.. more significant than a UN vote against another violation of international right.

Your reason for not publishing anything about the UN resolution is simple: You are paid trolls who have to defend and feed the Us Israeli propaganda machine.


text:
Thread:Comments:Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales announces move of Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem/Importance of News ?/reply (5)

A tiny country — that is how you it, don’t you? See this “tiny country” had the balls to go against the UN. Our reason not to publish anything by UN? You were one whole week late to write an article. This is not an encyclopaedia, news had a deadline. Without newer developments, it was relevant story but was no longer news. Everyone is free to write what they want to. If I was paid to write, what I have been doing for two and half years, it was child labour. You can sue the United States using this information. Go ahead.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
User talk:Ghofrane mlaouhi

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ghofrane mlaouhi


text:
User talk:Zlojicanel08

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zlojicanel08


text:
User talk:Ta6513647

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ta6513647


text:
User talk:AkilahFat2359795

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:AkilahFat2359795


text:
User talk:Devasiajk

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Devasiajk


text:
User talk:Kamsori

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kamsori


text:
User talk:Christaff13

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Christaff13


text:
User talk:Peter kazungu

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Peter kazungu


text: Comments:Israel transport minister Katz plans to name a railway station after US president Donald Trump


text:
User talk:LucieOlsen84

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:LucieOlsen84


text:
Talk:Football: Liverpool reaches agreement with Southampton FC to sign van Dijk

Review of revision 4372775 [Passed]

 * I thought we agreed this would be marked stale. •–• 07:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood. My impression was that it was heading that way but likely woudn't take long to review (it didn't), and I chose to slip it in.  --Pi zero (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


text: Comments:Football: Liverpool reaches agreement with Southampton FC to sign van Dijk


text:
User talk:Robertsilen

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robertsilen


text:
User talk:EditorKid

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:EditorKid


text:
User talk:RKHamburg

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:RKHamburg


text: Comments:United States: New York City mayoral swear-in to pair potential 2020 presidential prospects


text:
User talk:Bert Jones

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bert Jones


text:
User talk:GayBlocker116

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:GayBlocker116


text:
User talk:MJL

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom election
Voting in this year's election has closed. The other member of this year's election committee has posted results; please check the results and add your signature on them to certify them; they're at Arbitration Committee/2019 election. --Pi zero (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Sorry for the delay. – MJL  ‐Talk‐☖ 02:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. --Pi zero (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:MJL


text:
User talk:MC Cabinda

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:MC Cabinda


text:
User talk:Tien00qlg

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tien00qlg


text:
User talk:Dmoore5556

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dmoore5556


text:
User talk:Rrusescu

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rrusescu


text:
Template talk:US State

Any good reason to use of this template? •–• 10:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Evidently not. •–• 21:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

title: Template talk:US State


text:
User talk:Alfredo Das Betinhas

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alfredo Das Betinhas


text:
User talk:Harshgupta.59

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Harshgupta.59


text:
User talk:Florian Schneider

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Florian Schneider


text:
User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Visite fortuitement prolongée


text:
User talk:Omar Drioich

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Omar Drioich


text:
User talk:Vanished user 7493921

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vanished user 7493921


text:
User talk:Ayugva

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ayugva


text:
User talk:Pranjaldun

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pranjaldun


text:
User talk:ClaudiaArscott9

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:ClaudiaArscott9


text:
User talk:Gmentis

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Football transfers
Hi. I saw that you wrote a couple of football transfer articles. But you have not cited two independent sources, which is must [and you should have used facts from both the sources, we can't add sources for namesake]. Also, they are under minimal length. As a newbie, you might find these requirements overwhelming, but consider reading this article Football: Liverpool reaches agreement with Southampton FC to sign van Dijk. I wrote it last week, and it might help you how to write a transfer article. It would be better if the sources are in English. (Since there is no active reviewer on the project who knows Greek) •–• 09:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Contributing
Hi. So you know: Original reporting is a highly advanced technique here; it requires that the reporter by someone who already has an established good reputation here, and that they provide lots of documentation. To learn the ropes here, and start to accumulate a reputation with us, you want to start with synthesis writing. There's a compact overview of what we do here at Pillars of writing, then there's a tutorial on writing a first article at Writing an article. Cheers. --Pi zero (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

???
You still around??--Bddpaux (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gmentis


text:
User talk:Alexandra Sachelarie

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alexandra Sachelarie


text:
User talk:AudraClinton59

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:AudraClinton59


text:
User talk:CharlieBraunElErixo213

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:CharlieBraunElErixo213


text:
User talk:Badal Matubbar

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Badal Matubbar


text:
User talk:Abby112603202338

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abby112603202338


text:
User talk:LenoreGipson05

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:LenoreGipson05


text:
User talk:HalleWally1957

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:HalleWally1957


text:
User talk:HarrisNovotny

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:HarrisNovotny


text:
User talk:XTPJacquie

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:XTPJacquie


text:
User talk:GinaThiel642

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:GinaThiel642


text:
User talk:Leloko warona

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leloko warona


text: Comments:GM posts first annual loss since 1992


text:
User talk:Cayceakasha

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cayceakasha


text:
User talk:DaltonOHara

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:DaltonOHara


text:
User talk:Jgrdydb

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jgrdydb


text:
User talk:Kami761578

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kami761578


text:
User talk:Rodger5789

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rodger5789


text:
User talk:William S. Saturn/2017

ArbCom election 2017
As a current Arb, would you be willing to stand for Arbcom again this year? If you don't wish to nominate yourself, I would be happy to nominate you. --Pi zero (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I would be willing to stand for Arbcom again.  Thanks. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:William S. Saturn/2017


text:
User talk:BradyFurnell

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:BradyFurnell


text:
User talk:AhmadHodges5

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

--Pi zero (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:AhmadHodges5


text:
User talk:RosellaHoskin05

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:RosellaHoskin05


text:
User talk:CecilNesbit1889

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:CecilNesbit1889


text:
User talk:Bridget.gottlieb

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bridget.gottlieb


text:
User talk:ShaynaBarrier14

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:ShaynaBarrier14


text:
User talk:Antony Black

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Antony Black


text:
User talk:Lucas Donald Velour

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lucas Donald Velour


text:
User talk:SRCEstelle

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

--Pi zero (talk) 06:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:SRCEstelle


text:
User talk:Joshuasteve17

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joshuasteve17


text:
User talk:QuincyLeHunte

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:QuincyLeHunte


text:
User talk:Drwprz

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drwprz


text:
User talk:Jayhamlin

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jayhamlin


text:
User talk:雨落风

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:雨落风


text:
User talk:Hrizal

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hrizal


text:
User:Gmentis

Hi guys! I started writing news stories on 31/12/2017. I am from Athens, Greece, and I am a crazy supporter of AEK Athens FC. I specialise in Greek sports journalism.

title: User:Gmentis


text:
User talk:KelseyValazquez

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:KelseyValazquez


text:
User talk:Moaad wiki

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Moaad wiki


text:
User talk:Ali gull

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ali gull


text:
User talk:Olayinkaowolabi

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Olayinkaowolabi


text:
User talk:Memon shab

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Memon shab


text:
User talk:Pikapalabilirmisiniz

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pikapalabilirmisiniz


text:
Scaffolding collapses in Copenhagen

January 3, 2018

In, Denmark on Monday, the first day in the new year, scaffolding at the corner of and Koldinggade collapsed at about 13:00 local time (1200 ). Strong winds were reported.

Police cordoned off the area, noting it could collapse even more and cables for the street lightning were broken.

No personal injuries were reported, but some cars were damaged, according to the.

, the Danish workplace safety authority, was investigating the cause of the collapse and the police planned to question the company who set up the scaffolding.

title: Scaffolding collapses in Copenhagen


text:
User talk:DON89

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:DON89


text:
Thread:Comments:Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales announces move of Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem/Importance of News ?/reply (6)

You have to call this thing for what it is. It's not any "..news.org". It's an Israeli News Outlet, made by shills like you. But we are used to lies from this pit of devils who don't take the truth as serious as their believe in supremacy. The nonsense you post and select is unbearable. I guess nobody will read it any way.


text:
Thread:Comments:Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales announces move of Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem/Importance of News ?/reply (7)

Well, you did. I don't understand why are you whining after losing a news article that you wrote? You write something that was encyclopedic, no longer news (you don't even know what is news) and then spread your bullshit. Know this: number of people ho read the article will be greater than number of people who would read your opinion.


text:
Talk:Scaffolding collapses in Copenhagen

To the reviewer:
I feel I worked too much on this article to be able to review/publish this article. But as I speak fluent Danish, I can certify that Elgaard's original reporting is corroborated by the additional sources. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the help; I'll try my best with this. --Pi zero (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
User talk:سيف الاسلام صالحي

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:سيف الاسلام صالحي


text:
User talk:Franklin1214r

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Franklin1214r


text:
User talk:Bartium

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bartium


text:
User talk:TanThanTAN

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:TanThanTAN


text:
User talk:Lunen lorshe

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lunen lorshe


text:
User:ProfeFontanive

He ido y venido de muchos oficios por lo cual se instalar y reparar casi cualquier artilugio fabricado en este planeta... Cuando analicen mis contribuciones veran que no fanfarroneo...

title: User:ProfeFontanive


text:
User talk:DorthyNpi22

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:DorthyNpi22


text:
User talk:Shaik.ansari

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shaik.ansari


text:
User talk:Adam kasiri

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Adam kasiri


text:
User talk:Fdgt96

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fdgt96


text:
User talk:Netominas

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Netominas


text:
User talk:Aroi Airizzy 4T4

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aroi Airizzy 4T4


text:
User talk:Dilshad Ahmadd

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dilshad Ahmadd


text: Comments:Economic policy makers conclude Washington meetings


text:
User talk:Jeremy Optcore

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jeremy Optcore


text:
User talk:Andrie Hidayat SH

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andrie Hidayat SH


text:
User talk:JSmith101

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:JSmith101


text:
User talk:Volodyanocec

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Volodyanocec


text:
User talk:MarchTo1991

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:MarchTo1991


text:
User talk:Mel AB

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mel AB


text:
User talk:Vang113

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vang113


text:
User talk:Amycjgrace

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Amycjgrace


text:
User talk:Whicky1978

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Whicky1978


text:
User talk:Rohit Panjwani

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Publish
Do not try to publish an article until and unless you have reviewer rights, and even if you have those rights, you are not supposed to publish an article you were heavily involved in. Since it is serious issue, I am pinging an admin. You might get away with it for the first time, but if you repeat it, you would be blocked. 117.248.122.21 (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Independent review is amongst the most important policies on the project; only authorized reviewers are able to review, and thus to publish articles. There are technical measures in place to prevent unauthorized publication from working, because it is such a serious policy violation.  We usually figure the first time a user attempts unauthorized publication they might simply not know, but a knowing attempt to violation the policy is disruption.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rohit Panjwani


text:
User talk:Walter Nado

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Walter Nado


text:
User talk:Dipendraghatal

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dipendraghatal


text:
User talk:Trita Nado

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Trita Nado


text:
User talk:Mojalefakano

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mojalefakano


text:
User talk:Chinbar

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chinbar


text:
User talk:Jamesgraham521

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jamesgraham521


text:
User talk:Unknown artist

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Unknown artist


text:
User talk:Akram2018

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Akram2018


text:
User talk:CorinaGoldfarb1

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:CorinaGoldfarb1


text:
User talk:CharliBak7

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:CharliBak7


text:
User talk:Infiture

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Infiture


text:
User talk:Cannonbro

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cannonbro


text:
User talk:Glofran

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Glofran


text:
User talk:BoyceMcNish

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:BoyceMcNish


text:
User talk:Jekilla

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jekilla


text:
Thread:Comments:Football: Liverpool reaches agreement with Southampton FC to sign van Dijk/My opinion

Excellent article style, and extensive coverage of the transfer without useless words. Congrats!


text:
User talk:Rabani Erfan

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rabani Erfan


text:
User talk:PajkeD

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:PajkeD


text:
User talk:LucieSchmitz

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:LucieSchmitz


text:
User talk:Elenalkware

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elenalkware


text:
User talk:Afrink315

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Afrink315


text:
User talk:Giammarco Ferrari

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Giammarco Ferrari


text:
Thread:Comments:Guatemalan president Jimmy Morales announces move of Israeli embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem/Importance of News ?/reply (8)

The problem is, and has been for most of the projects history, Wikinews is understaffed. Guatemala wasn't "picked" to be more important. The person who wrote this article created much more complete and timely article. If you had put half as much effort into your article on the UN vote, as you are putting into these comments, I am sure you could have gotten it published. There are enormous gaps in Wikinews coverage, but please do not chalk it up to bias without any sort of evidence.


text:
User talk:Foosh101

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Foosh101


text:
User talk:Gold Goodness Nnanyelu

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gold Goodness Nnanyelu


text:
User talk:BRJ advocate

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:BRJ advocate


text:
User talk:Dmitry Saransk

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dmitry Saransk


text:
User talk:SalmanZ

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:SalmanZ


text:
User talk:Nicoc1amour

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nicoc1amour


text:
User talk:Danielthegood

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Danielthegood


text:
User talk:إسماعيل حمدوش

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:إسماعيل حمدوش


text:
User talk:Adityafeb22

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Adityafeb22


text:
User talk:Xrcaf

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xrcaf


text:
User talk:1 Great Username

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:1 Great Username


text:
User talk:涂鸦魅影

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:涂鸦魅影


text:
User talk:Msafko80

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Msafko80


text:
User talk:Anubhav Agarwal RNA

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I deleted your 'article'
I deleted your 'article' because Wikinews is no place to post a 'professional profile' or other type of content. You should not attempt to post such content again, because it can result in a block or a ban. Wikinews attempts to post news. Read the guidelines as provided above. --SVTCobra 06:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anubhav Agarwal RNA


text:
User talk:Bestgloria18

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bestgloria18


text:
England: Multi-storey carpark in Liverpool gutted by fire, 1,300 vehicles destroyed

January 4, 2018 A fire on Sunday night in the seven-storey carpark for the in, England destroyed almost all the vehicles parked inside and led to cancellation of the final evening of the Liverpool International Horse Show and evacuation of nearby blocks of flats. The blaze reportedly started with a parked.  { "type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [ {     "type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ -2.9895472526550293,         53.396979095747874        ]      }    }  ] }

Investigators with the fire brigade stated that they believe the fire began with an accidental engine fire in the Range Rover at about 4.30 pm. The first call was made at 4.42 and firefighters arrived eight minutes after that. Ultimately twelve engines and 85 firefighters were involved in combatting the blaze. Aerial appliances were used and also three high-volume pumps. Fed by the fuel in vehicles parked inside, the temperature of the fire in the carpark is believed to have reached as high as 1,000. It was too hot to be extinguished with water from hydrants, so a high-volume pump was used to draw water from the, and two more were brought from other fire brigades in the region.

The carpark has seven storeys and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles, and approximately 1,300 were parked in it when the fire broke out. According to Dan Stephens, chief fire officer for, almost all of them were destroyed, with the exception of a few parked on the top level and at corners. "With these very high temperatures, you were never going to put the fire out without the whole building taking hold. The speed at which the fire spreads means you simply aren’t going to put it out," said Stephens.

The carpark itself was severely damaged; according to, the mayor of Liverpool. It is not in danger of collapsing but will have to be demolished, which will be difficult with the many burned-out cars still inside it, Anderson told the BBC.

 { "type": "FeatureCollection", "features": [ {     "type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Polygon", "coordinates": [ [           [              -2.992787361145,              53.397858708953            ],            [              -2.9913282394409,              53.398293710947            ],            [              -2.9888391494751,              53.394787980169            ],            [              -2.990255355835,              53.394455304582            ],            [              -2.992787361145,              53.397858708953            ]          ]        ]      }    },    {      "type": "Feature", "properties": {}, "geometry": { "type": "Point", "coordinates": [ -2.989268302917481,         53.39678397908217        ]      }    }  ] }

According to Stephens, there were no serious injuries: one woman injured her hand, and two people were treated for smoke inhalation. A spokesman for the Echo Arena also stated that all animals were safe. All horses were successfully evacuated from the carpark and then removed from the stables after smoke spread to them. Six dogs were also rescued unharmed, two on a lower level in the early stages of the fire and four that had been left in a car on the top level, freed by firefighters on Monday after the fire was put out.

The final evening of the four-day Liverpool International Horse Show had been scheduled to begin at 7.30, and had to be cancelled. Many attendees were stranded in the city on New Year's Eve night. Merseyside police directed people to the Pullman Hotel, where assistance was available, and the  set up an assistance centre at the Lifestyles Gym. A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers has said that insurance companies will "move very quickly" to reimburse owners whose vehicles were destroyed.

Nearby blocks of flats were evacuated because of the smoke. Eyewitnesses reported hearing what they at first thought were firecrackers, then "multiple explosions", "bangs and popping", "the bangs of car windows exploding". People reported leaving everything in their cars, including their cellphones, and running for their lives.

Mayor Anderson tweeted that cuts to fire services over the last two years made it significantly harder to fight the fire and might have caused it not to be controllable. He also suggested that fire safety in multi-storey carparks had not been sufficiently considered and that installing sprinklers in them might help stop future fires before they become unmanageable, in a letter to, a member of.


text:
User talk:JACosgr

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:JACosgr


text:
User talk:Charleswachsberg

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews is not Wikipedia
Wikinews is not Wikipedia--SVTCobra 08:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Charleswachsberg


text:
User talk:Inderpaul21

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Inderpaul21


text:
User talk:Ahmsai 1973

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ahmsai 1973


text:
User talk:Abbas.nr.1389

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abbas.nr.1389


text:
User talk:Viajaste

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Viajaste


text:
User talk:ILoveTheDC10

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:ILoveTheDC10


text:
User talk:Sinavir

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sinavir


text:
User talk:EldenReiniger6

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:EldenReiniger6


text:
User talk:Mackteague

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mackteague


text:
User talk:Rapitrejnado

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rapitrejnado


text:
User talk:Naik mehsud

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Naik mehsud


text:
User talk:IleneMarvin82

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:IleneMarvin82


text:
User talk:CRH380A0001

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:CRH380A0001


text:
User talk:Eldon6506357

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eldon6506357


text:
User talk:Ladhalalit

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ladhalalit


text:
User talk:Djounzaf

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Djounzaf


text:
User talk:செழியன்

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:செழியன்


text:
User talk:Cethos

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cethos


text:
User talk:Nazimnaher

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nazimnaher


text:
User talk:MHER SARATIKYAN

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:MHER SARATIKYAN


text:
User talk:Professor Quibble

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Professor Quibble


text:
User talk:Lindathomasbarnett

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lindathomasbarnett


text: Comments:Scaffolding collapses in Copenhagen


text:
User talk:RickyTrower874

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:RickyTrower874


text:
User talk:ZubairSiddiqueJess

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:ZubairSiddiqueJess


text:
User talk:The Dales of Glendale

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:The Dales of Glendale


text:
User talk:Queen Nick

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Queen Nick


text:
User:Danpetrow

Dan Petrow is a technologist currently located in Enid, Oklahoma. View his personal website at http://danpetrow.com

Dan Petrow currently works in the agricultural sector doing industrial and mechanical product design.

title: User:Danpetrow


text:
User talk:Danpetrow

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Renaming your user page
Hello, I undid your page move (aka renaming) of your user page and its talk page. If your intent was to change your username, this is not how you do that. To rename your account, contact a Steward on Meta, the coordination site for Wikimedia projects, at Steward requests/Username changes. Local bureaucrats are no longer able to rename users. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Danpetrow


text:
User talk:Moufleh fatiha

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Moufleh fatiha


text:
User talk:Ylshen

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ylshen


text:
User talk:Jensduckling

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jensduckling


text:
User talk:GuyCaswell3193

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:GuyCaswell3193


text:
User talk:LunaCelestial

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:LunaCelestial


text:
User talk:Sunnyshahrukhrj

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sunnyshahrukhrj


text:
User talk:Alfredo287

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alfredo287


text:
User talk:Pablo uzoma

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pablo uzoma


text:
User:Pablo uzoma

Good day everyone my name is pablo uzoma. am from Imo state in Nigeria, I live in Ph city and i school in UNIZIK, just completed second semester. I study *Business Adminstration* in my UNI.

title: User:Pablo uzoma


text:
Talk:England: Multi-storey carpark in Liverpool gutted by fire, 1,300 vehicles destroyed

Photos
FYI I've contacted Liverpool, UK for photos. They might respond. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 23:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you tried Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service? They seem to be the ones who gave photos to the BBC. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks SVTCobra, I've sent them an email now as well. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 00:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * user Andy Daley (scousefire) has a bunch of photos from both the day of the fire and the day after. If he can be persuaded to change the copyright status to one that is compatible with Commons, that is another alternative. Lastly, there's Commons:Category:Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service which has various photos of emergency vehicles from the service that responded. Perhaps better to have a fire engine than a Land Rover. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Contacted Andy at Flickr. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 00:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Any word back from any of them? Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I am going to go ahead with a review before this gets truly stale. It is not super-timely as it is. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Liverpool replied but did not provide photos. Thanks for the review. Gryllida (talk, chat) 05:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4373800 [Passed]

 * Thank you! And thanks also to you and others for the effort on images. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. Sadly, we didn't get any photos of the actual fire or aftermath in time. And the maps are the work of Gryllida. I don't even know how to do that. On the bright side, you can add another to your list of published articles. Cheers and happy editing, --SVTCobra 21:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The content of the mapframe tag has to be either empty or a valid GeoJSON with styling, as produced by a GeoJSON editor.
 * See mw:Help:Extension:Kartographer. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 05:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's already getting a bit too technical for me ... Are the maps not displaying correctly in the article? They look fine to me and are interactive. Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The maps show correctly.
 * I am just showing how to use this for writing other articles.
 * Click here,
 * zoom in at the right location,
 * put a marker on the map,
 * copy the JSON output provided,
 * wrap the output into a mapframe tag (whose width and align are indicated in its attributes like in other articles)
 * --Gryllida (talk, chat) 06:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. I played with it a little. Pretty neat. Adding it to my toolbox Thanks. --SVTCobra 07:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A story about Sunday’s event published on Thursday…pretty darned wicked. Nice dealing with the freshness on this one. Hey Pi zero maybe you could follow SVTCobra’s approach to newsworthiness. 223.227.105.53 (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Raising the question is reasonable. Heckling is unnecessary.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * tried it. Did not work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 223.227.100.203 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Truthfully, it can work, with patience and practice. It works better than the other.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * one earned me the title of a “Heckler” another one, well someone who “bitches about the review”, makes article “worse”, creates a “mess”, someone who is “trauma triggered” and what not. If I had to choose, I would choose to be called a heckler by someone who knows me well, rather than a stranger. I feel bad that I wanted that stranger to be back on the project for the greater good. 106.206.54.184 (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the way you worded your criticisms inadvertently hurt the person you were saying them to. And after a while they got upset and said some things that upset you.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe that this article meets the requirements as per WN:CG. It was the last possible day to publish, but it was not too late. I have given Pi zero a fuller answer elsewhere. --SVTCobra 16:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Nmclough

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nmclough


text:
User talk:Tallamar

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tallamar


text:
User talk:Dickbomb

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dickbomb


text:
User talk:Hexabytes

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hexabytes


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2017/December

Ethnic slur on front page
I am really reluctant to have to bring this up at this time, but it can't be helped. The main article of the wikinews front page has a title with an ethnic slur (one of the four articles mentioned here). This article is no longer fresh, so I am surprised to see it still displayed prominently, while other articles are being rejected from the Review queue  for being stale. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)  Please ping me
 * If the word which you think is a "religious slur" is "Jew"; Jew is someone who practices Judaism; just like a Muslim is someone who practices Islam. As for why "no longer fresh" articles are on the main page, all the articles which pass the review are featured on the main page. We do not delete a published article after it is "no longer fresh". They become part of our archived articles, just like any other news website. These lede articles are replaced by new articles. Currently there are no articles to replace them, hence they are there. Earlier this year, when seven articles were published in a day, some articles got just a couple of hours in the lede section. •–• 19:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The only references to ethnic or racial identity I see are: Argentine, Brazilian, Israeli, Italian, Jews, Jewish, Spanish, and US. None of those are slurs. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * looking at the link of Washington Post article, it looks like Ottawahitech is referring to "Jew". If it feels like a slur, which it should not, I would blame the western media, and the way they report, considering how drastically the meaning of jihad or a jihadi. It has nothing to do with militant activities, but I would be surprised if someone from the western part of the world could accurately tell the meaning. Actually, I don't think most of the Indians or the people from east could tell this. •–• 20:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Moreover, looking at Washington Post's article, it just reflects some western people are unfamiliar with non-western culture. •–• 20:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

From a discouraged newbie
I don’t know if anyone here is interested in some feedback from a discouraged newbie? Just in case, here it is:

I liked the friendly and helpful participants and the community here that is small enough to avoid out-and-out flaming even without a policy about  AGF

But...

It seemed like the system here was rigged to favour articles written by certain authors(Agastya)/ topics(football) over others. I am sure the experienced editors here disagree. Actually I don’t know if anyone here agrees, but isn’t there a conflict of interest when the only reviewer here is also the author of most  articles appearing on the front page? Today for example 4 out of 5 articles on the front page were written by this wiki-news Reviewer:
 * Football: Italian club AC Milan sacks Vincenzo Montella as manager
 * Israeli Health minister Ya'akov Litzman resigns in protest after Jews made to work on Jewish rest day
 * Football: Messi signs contract extension with FC Barcelona
 * Italian court sentences Brazilian footballer Robinho to nine years for 2013 sexual assault

I hope the reaction to this post will not simply shoot the messenger. I have nothing personal against Agastya who, I am sure, is very talented. Nor am I trying to advance views from outside of wiki-news that are meant to help shut it down. Quite the contrary, I wish things could be improved here so that the front page is less homogeneous and new users are drawn here to help. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Please ping me
 * . In fairness, last week there was a long stretch where 4 out of 5 stories on the front page were my first 4 stories created here. The reviewer worked their ass off licking them into shape and advising me. So I am both aghast and grateful.
 * I find there are a lot of rules here, and I still don't understand why my latest story was rejected as stale when it was posted the day after the event. In fact I have bitten my tongue about the implications for this as a news site. But as a still newer newbie (with no journalistic training whatsoever), I am aware I don't know enough about the ways of this project to judge.
 * What I do see and would like to emphasize is a terribly small active group, with two or three active reviewers/admins being run ragged. In fact I came here in an attempt to walk my talk by putting some of my free-time writing effort into doing my share to alleviate the low participation here. (Thereby increasing the load on teh reviewers/admins of course, but you can't have everything.) In my view it was scandalous that this project didn't cover the Grenfell Tower Fire (I note that several other-language Wikinews projects did), and I kicked myself for not writing it up. So here I am now. But I do think the low participation is the answer, not bias, conscious or unconscious. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Consider looking at my time card. I am not boasting, but yes, I spent a lot of time on Wikinews. I write a lot [that is subjective]. Note that I became a reviewer in May. I had 200+ articles published before I became a reviewer, and I am not the only reviewer on the project. Note that every article that is published appears on the main page. 4 out of 5 is a small ratio. I have had 9 out of 10 at least twice. But it is due to the fact that Darkfrog24 did not edit Wikinews (for almost a week, they left a talk page message); George Ho also did not write a news article, lately; numbermaniac did write one article (or two), but were busy irl. Yngvadottir wrote some articles recently, yes. The lede section features five recently published articles so it might look that most of them are mine. (look at the last ten published articles; ratio drops to 5/10) But a week earlier, I wrote just three out of ten articles. I would not call Italian court sentences Brazilian footballer Robinho to nine years for 2013 sexual assault as a "football" article, the accused is a footballer. And I did not want AC Milan's article to be reviewed first. Israel: failing to comply with transportation law, Tel Aviv court orders Uber to partially stop its taxi ordering services and India: herd of donkeys granted bail after being locked up in Uttar Pradesh jail for eating expensive plants lost freshness this morning. I was expecting Uber's article getting reviewed, but that did not happen. This needs to be seen in a bigger picture. Sometimes, I write a lot of football articles (I think I have written ~160 football articles), sometimes, there are lot of US-based articles. I remember once I noticed seven out of last ten articles published had 'U' as the first letter in the headline. These patters appear when one wikinewsie is away some some days or weeks. For example, I have my exams from Monday, and  would [probably] not write anything for two weeks. (I am sleepy -- it is 1:30 AM, and I don't know if most of this makes sense, or even if this is a "proposal") •–•  19:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * you might want to use ping template. FWIW, the Nortk Korea event happened on 28th. And it was heavily covered in MSM. Whenever that happens, there is so much more happening to the story that the original incident [the launch] loses freshness very quickly. in this case -- probably they could brief you about it, though it is my responsibility, but I don't think I would be able to explain this sooner. The developments, like US's response, Trump's claims, China and South Korea, and Japan's response -- they become the newer developments. I know it is hard to understand, as a newbie. the first time I faced this problem was when Justin Trudeau was elected as Canada's PM, and it was marked stale in (iirc) less than two days of the vote counting.BTW: I do not have a degree in journalism, and I think there was an article about Grenfell, but it lost its freshness and was later deleted. •–•  20:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are so many other things we could not cover, like Catalonia referendum, Rohingya crises, Chile and Kenya elections, the list goes on... We are volunteers and have like outside Wikinews. (Look at my time card and tell me that I don't write frequently -- you would conclude that I do not sleep) Time is the most important thing on Wikinews. •–• 20:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the Catalonia referendum and Rohingya crises are examples of recent news events which have been described more or less detail on the Dutch Wikinews (nl:Categorie:Spaanse constitutionele crisis, 2017, nl:Categorie:Conflict met de Rohingya-moslims in Myanmar). On the other hand, the Dutch Wikipedia only has very little information about these subjects (as good as nothing at all about the Rohingya crisis). The situation here seems to be completely inverse; the English Wikipedia does have all this information, while the English Wikinews has literally nothing about it. De Wikischim (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not that I did not want to cover them, but why do you people forget we have lives outside Wikinews? Those Wikipedia articles were not written by a single person. Wikipedia does not have a time constraint, we have. Wikipedia has no information about any ComicCon event in India, Wikinews has. Doesn’t prove a point. An encyclopaedic article and a news article are two different things. There were so many developments for Catalonia referendum that any delay was putting things out of freshness window. 223.237.238.18 (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How about the time constraint for this? Of course, this item belongs better here on Wikinews. Instead, Wikipedia covers it now altogether (at the same time, it is still a basic rule that Wikipedia should not function as a news site). --De Wikischim (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikinewsies write what they are interested to write about. If you want to write, go ahead, write about it instead of saying nobody wrote it. I did not get 250+ articles under my name by whining oh nobody wrote about this, or that. The New York article is both a piece of news (or say, was a news) and an encyclopedic article. You might have free time to rant on Water Cooler, I have semester end exams to focus on. Tell me when a teenager wrote 250+ articles, all by themselves. •–• 10:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I for my part will not write about this here on this Wikinews version, since I do not really feel encouraged by your policy. By the way, I see your articles are mainly about football. De Wikischim (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Then stop discussing about it on WC/proposals -- there is no proposal being discussed by any of you. And as I said before, Wikinewsies decide what to write. As if football articles fail to qualify for "news". •–• 12:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing a different perspective. It is hard to judge if one's own personal experience is representative. Please continue teling us how you are faring. BTW I see that you have not tried to publish any more stories here and sincerely hope it is not because of this thread. As I said before: I wish things could be improved here so that the front page is less homogeneous and new users are drawn here to help. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

 * I don't understand the remark about the 'only reviewer here' being the author of most articles. Two of the most active users here are reviewers.  Of the two of us, I haven't authored an article here for ages, being consumed by review and infrastructure.  But we have a strict policy that review must be done by a reviewer not involved in the writing of the article they are reviewing. The most skillful Wikinews veterans write articles that are much easier than average to review, since there are few difficulties for a reviewer to puzzle over, few problems to correct, and their articles are very likely to pass review if they get attended to while still fresh.  If a reviewer has just a little time to devote to review — and it is difficult for a reviewer to clear a big enough block of time to do a full review — the most efficient use of that small time is to apply it to an article they can be pretty sure will be easy to review and is likely to result in a publication, all of which encourages them to review a short article by an experienced Wikinewsie.  Those sports articles tend to be short, and they're being written by an experienced Wikinewsie.  Of course, the people who are most reliably able to produce articles that are easy to review are also the ones whose deep intuiting of the project guidelines and principles, so useful for writing easy-to-review articles, make them best suited to become reviewers themselves. These things are not the whole picture, of course; efficiency isn't everything.  They explain why reviewers would tend to review articles written by other reviewers, but obviously the future of the project requires new Wikinewsies, and we make a lot of effort to review non-veterans' submissions and help them along.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you feel two reviewers (I assume you mean you and agastia) can handle the Review queue in a timely and professional manner? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Update from a discouraged newbie

 * Update (since Dec 1, 2017) 4 out of 5 articles on the front page were still written by  same wiki-news Reviewer:
 * Wikinews attends ComicCon in Bangalore, India
 * Football: Italian club AC Milan sacks Vincenzo Montella as manager
 * Israeli Health minister Ya'akov Litzman resigns in protest after Jews made to work on Jewish rest day
 * Football: Messi signs contract extension with FC Barcelona Ottawahitech (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)  Please ping me
 * I don’t think this discussion is going anywhere. What are you trying to establish by these “statistics”, ? There hasn’t been articles which passed review — lost freshness or had other issues. Just like number of edits has nothing to do with the activity on the project, these statistics does not mean nobody tried to write here, or reviewer did not attempt reviewing articles. 27.59.96.154 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is surely not true that nobody tried/tries to write here. The big problem is that there is only very little chance that your article gets actually published. You have to wait until the few authorized reviewers who are active here have finished their work, and by then the news you tried to write about has often already become stale so you did your work actually in vain. (On the other hand, it seems to be no problem that news which is some weeks old still appears on the main page once the article has been approved). De Wikischim (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can’t get enough of this, can you? Why do you people forget that we do have a life outside Wikinews? We are supposed to deal with lot of other things and yet I spend most of my available time on Wikinews. Published stories becomes part of the archive and are on the main page until new stories are published. I don’t understand why you don’t get it. But this conversation is not helping anything or anyone (to write an acceptable article) 223.237.198.229 (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, tell me, if you don't want to see "stale articles" on Main Page, and can not get new articles to be published, what do you want the main page to be filled with? •–• 08:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the main point, of course. The reviewing process here as it is now does not work well, so the publication of almost every new article is blocked. De Wikischim (talk) 10:21, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Then how do you think we have 22 thousand news articles published [which by the way is the most, not considering those written by bots]? •–• 10:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How many of those 22 thousand stories were written in 2017? How many written in 2017 were written by you? How many written by you in 2017 were football related articles? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)  Please ping me
 * okay, you want to play it like this. Fine. First things first. This has nothing to do with proposals so stop using this page for your “right to information” campaign. How about you do your homework and count number of articles written in 2017, football articles written in 2017 and those articles I wrote in 2017? Category:acagastya (Wikinewsie) will provide the list of articles I wrote (except ComicCon article). Category:Football (soccer) will give you the list of football articles and you need to check for each month and add it to know how many articles were published this year. Example: WN:2017/December. •–• 17:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok here is one of my proposals: Reviewers should not be gaining unfair advantage by rejecting other reporter's stories so their their own stories move up in the queue. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)  Please ping me
 * I'll be brutally honest. That proposal makes no sense, and as a good-faith proposal seems to result from lack of comprehension of the project.  Contributors who know what they're doing are the ones who may eventually become reviewers; and then once they're reviewers you want to forbid them to contribute?  We would then limit ourselves to contributors who don't know what they're doing.  Or are you thinking that articles on the review queue (granted, we call it a "queue", which is misleading terminology) are supposed to be processed in order of submission?  They aren't necessarily processed in that order; sometimes it even makes more sense to process them most recent submission first. We need contributors who know how to produce material that's substantially up to our standards; that makes reviewing vastly easier and more effective, as the reviewer then mostly only has to double-check that, yes, everything is just fine.  It's nerve-wracking, time-consuming, and exhausting to deal with material that's not up to snuff, but we gladly do it again and again; we like to help enthusiastic, good-willed newcomers learn the ropes — and it's the only way we can help inexperienced users to become veteran Wikinewsies who do know what they're doing and can pretty consistently write articles that are vastly easier to review.  However, there are two very different sorts of reactions we get, broadly speaking.  Some users grasp that the objective is to produce vetted output, and they respond to our feedback by continually striving to improve.  It's very rewarding to work with folks with such a positive attitude.  Then there are users who see review as an obstacle to them getting their (presumably, intrinsically superior) work published, and respond to feedback by arguing and complaining about it; we try to help them too, and somethings they eventually straighten out and become excellent Wikinewsies, but alas sometimes they only end up complaining ever-more-bitterly and eventually make proposals such as "let's do a soft close of the project".  --Pi zero (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Review-before vs. instant-unpublish: examples of alternative models
When Wikinews first began the review process was much as it is now: the mainstream model of single-authored articles submitted and reviewed by a limited number of editors. This model failed to scale during a world-wide news event. A different model was established in which articles could be self-published on the understanding that anyone could instantly unpublish the articles.

There were strong arguments against that model - spam, misinformation, bias - but the strongest argument against it at the time was Google News refused to carry content which did not have editorial oversight. Nonetheless, en.WN contributors continued with the instant-unpublish model for 18 months, and showed slow but steady growth due in large part, in my opinion, to the instant gratification of users seeing their article published in a timely fashion. With the fast-publish model more minor errors exist in published articles, encouraging new contributors to 'fix' them, and again giving them instant feedback of seeing their changes live.

But pre-publishing review crept back in, and was re-established as policy.

Google and main stream news media have abandoned/strongly limited the pre-publish review model, just as they have nearly eliminated copy editors and fact checkers. en.WN rate of published articles has steadily declined over a decade under the pre-publish review model.

These two are not the only citizen journalism models, but they represent two extremes. I believe the community should talk about changing the current model which has manifestly failed - again. Shake things up, find a new way. -  Amgine | t 21:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Hi Amgine. You haven't changed your position on the thing we disagree about, I see.  Your account of history, I have some doubts about, but since I wasn't present for that part, I'll merely note that I don't actually trust your version of it to be seen through unbiased eyes.  The part about "manifestly failed" is, of course, bullshit. The need for a venue that melds the vet-before-publication ethic of news with the contribution-by-The-People ethic of wikis, which is what we do here, is desperately needed in these times of opinion-based worldview and rampant lying by fiction outlets calling themselves news.  The lack of vetting in social media and Wikipedia has only grown more severe over the years, and attempting to resurrect your don't-vet-first ideology on Wikinews now, when vetting is most desperately needed in the world... well.  I'll stop short of what I'm really thinking about that, and merely say it shows very poor judgement on your part.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Luckily this is a Mediwiki-based project. I believe you will find that May 2006 - a few months after I had accepted to do Wikimania and so was stepping away from the project - was the watershed of articles published per day and contributor activity. The stats are readily measured. I prefer hard facts. (Also note: that watershed was likely due the writing competition others had organized and were pursuing without my involvement, which is as it should be.)
 * As for your opinion of how things should be done by the community, I am in favour of your expressing - and acting - on it. But it is your opinion. While the free-for-all we had for a time was productive, it was not always fun and probably would not have the same outcomes today. That is why I think new contributors should take the reins of this discussion, the currently active should be talking about what can be done to increase article churn. I mean, my opinion is people writing should create the norms, but it is only my opinion. -  Amgine | t 22:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 2006 doesn't strike me as relevant to the history, but I also doubt the history you're interpreting is relevant, in which case arguing about it is wasteful (though admittedly most of this thread is wasteful). Note, Wikinewsies who write articles are not driving this thread; I don't like to be unnecessarily harsh toward OTH (whom I've not yet given up hope for), but this thread is being driven by a (very human) impulse to destroy rules in order to avoid learning them, an impulse that ultimately cannot coexist with anything more credible than an unvetted blog.  The world doesn't need more unvetted blogs (well... that was true yesterday, at least; what damage today's net neutrality thing will do remains to be seen; but blogging is not a wikimedia function, and is absolutely not news).  --Pi zero (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * In short: shut up and follow the rules. No. But you should be aware that June/July 2006 was when pre-publication review became policy again. -  Amgine | t 00:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your characterization of what I said. I suspect it's based on what you expect to hear, rather than what I said; that does happen, especially when two people already have a long history of disagreeing vehemently.  Though our long failure to find common ground on this issue saddens me; still, sad or not, there it is.  I could almost imagine a very pleasant, and interesting, and ultimately profitable exploration of the issues in which we come to a clear understanding of the overall landscape of the issues and find that both our views fit into a unified view... but I don't really believe anymore that we could get there, even though the destination might exist.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a very nice thought. But what I would like to hear is neither you, nor myself, but the opinions of people who have not been around so long they have lost perspective. -  Amgine | t 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Long experience does not necessarily cause loss of perspective. Nor does lack of experience confer understanding.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

 * My opinion: reviewing articles before publishing them is a good system as such. But with the currently very low number of reviewers active here now who are solely authorized to approve, it surely does not work the way it should. The only effect now is that almost nobody can actually publish an article because it becomes stale before having passed the review, except for the reviewers themselves (who, in addition, mainly choose subjects they have written themselves to be published on the main page). De Wikischim (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * we write what interests us. And no matter what we write about; if it is published, it appears in the main page. I have no clue what you mean by “mainly choose subjects they have written themselves” — we have strict policy against self publishing. 223.237.215.67 (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought user:Acagastya was a reviewer too - perhaps I was wrong, sorry in that case. Almost all the articles which appear now on the main page are about football - so according to the English Wikinews, football is the only important thing for a news site to report about. In the meantime, all kinds of other news items are fully ignored, or they have been written but the articles have been disapproved by the reviewer. To be honest, this annoys me somewhat. De Wikischim (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I write what interests me. I write football news and it is news. You can’t not ready it for being a football articles. I have written articles on other topic. I remember the time when I wrote an article about a eighth grade girl who was raped on Indian Independence Day and asked Dutch Wikinewsies to translate it. They said it was not news. So don’t tell me what is news and what is not. If you want to see the articles which I wrote and are not about football, see the <DynamicPageList>

category =acagastya (Wikinewsie) notcategory=Football (soccer) </DynamicPageList> Tell me, did you or your home Wikinews write about it? Tell me, weren’t they newsworthy? 223.237.215.91 (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of your remarks might be explained by some misunderstanding about how en.wn review works. I'm not sure what misunderstanding, though.  A couple of quick thoughts.
 * Reviewers are volunteers, just like all other contributors here except that they've earned the community's trust to wield the review bit — a very high level of trust, indeed. Reviewers are not allowed to review an article they're involved with; basically, we aren't allowed to be a coauthor of an article we review; which is why when a reviewer reviews an article, they avoid making big changes so as not to disqualify themselves from reviewing that article.  Reviewer is given only to contributors who are trusted not to abuse it and trusted to deeply grok our policies and practices.  It's fairly predictable that articles written by reviewers are going to pass review smoothly because the writer knows how to meet our standards, and if that were no so they would not have been given the review bit.
 * We don't just say "no, that's not acceptable"; when not-ready'ing an article for reasons that might not be fully understood by the reporter, we try to write helpful review comments (taking extra time and effort to do so). For example, the last time I reviewed an article of yours, I wrote an extensive review comment trying to help you particularly with our concept of focus, which seemed to be giving you some trouble.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Update Dec 17, 2017: 4 out of 5 articles on the front page were still written by agastya ( 2 football)
On the front page started by agastya (who goes by different IDs and IPs): (another article: England: Baby born with heart outside body operated on; surviving, three weeks after birth was started by User:Yngvadottir — congratulations
 * Apple, Inc. confirms acqusition of Shazam
 * Wikinews attends ComicCon in Bangalore, India
 * UEFA Champions League 2017–2018: Draw for Last 16 held at Nyon
 * Football: Peter Stöger replaces Peter Bosz as Borussia Dortmund's boss

Meanwhile there are now Five articles queued in Review:

 * US state of Alabama elects its first Democratic US Senator in 25 years
 * Fox News gets sued by Black Lives Matter protester
 * Scientific expedition to the homeland Cus D'Amato was completed with series of discoveries
 * United States Federal Communications Commission overturns Net Neutrality rules, deregulating internet service providers
 * Disney buys 21st Century Fox for 52.400 bi dollars

 * most if not all are already stale. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)  Please ping me
 * If I may add something: I find it rather shocking that an evident spelling error in one of the titles named above (acqusition) still appears appeared on the main page without being corrected. So this is apparently not a serious issue, while all kinds of articles written by others than Acagastya are rejected for all kinds of far-fetched reasons? De Wikischim (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd thank you for pointing out the spelling error, but you clearly didn't mean to improve anything or you would have gone about it differently. --Pi zero (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, next time I won't notify you again about no matter what blatant spelling error. And do you really think it isn't my intention to improve anything? Did you have a honest look at my earlier contributions? De Wikischim (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you were really trying to improve things in this case, I apologize. To be clear, though, I doubted your intentions in this particular case because your remark was hedged with snideness/trolling about core en.wn policies whose underlying principles and journalistic values are, for whatever reason, apparently not visible to you.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So you didn't even notice that I already made this remark earlier today, only to conclude a number of hours later that the same spelling error was still there on the very prominent place? By the way, I'd advise you to be very thrifty with using qualifications such as "trolling". Only if someone's a real troll, it is justifiable to call him that way. De Wikischim (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the first I knew that you had made that remark on the article talk page was when I saw your revert of it in RecentChanges. Unfortunately, it's extremely easy for remarks on article talk pages, such as that, to go unnoticed.  A suggestion:  The most effective way to get a remark like that noticed is to ping someone (if you know who to ping), a lesson I've learned the hard way myself; another approach in this case would be to use editprotected on the talk-page request, which would not necessarily get it noticed quickly, but at least it would go on a queue so would not slip through the cracks entirely. I don't wish to let your objection to the "snideness/trolling" description go unremarked, but note it would be amazingly easy to just make things worse.  I consider "snideness/trolling" a lesser gradation than "trolling" (which in turn would be marginally lesser than calling someone a "troll"); but I think if you look honestly at things you've said in this thread you'll find there's a tinge of trolling there, and you may find that eliminating that tinge from your commenting style can improve the general atmosphere of discussions in which you take part.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to just fix it, rather than notify anyone about it. I understand wanting to highlight what appears to be different standards, but that is actually a form of disrupting to make a point. -  Amgine | t 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Although it's a good thought, in this case, alas, they would be unable to fix it, as lately we've found it advisable to fully protect published articles against moving, due to page-move vandalism. So they really would need to request the article be moved.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * if I could have fixed that error myself yesterday, I surely would have done so. Unfortunately you use the fact that I couldn't as an argument to disparage my intentions. De Wikischim (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you cannot rename a page after it is published because of the page protection settings. Only an admin can do that. 223.237.228.137 (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

 * De Wikischim: No disparagement was intended; in fact I was taking issue with Pi Zero's response because of course I had assumed, on a wiki where it is easier to repair vandalism than to commit it, that at most an article would be partially protected to allow community members to address these kinds of minor errors. It appears I was mistaken, and for that I apologize. -  Amgine | t 18:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the consequences of page-move vandalism to published articles here were as trivial as you suggest, we certainly wouldn't fully protect against moves. --Pi zero (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For an admin I believe it is three clicks with the move over redirect. For a user, one page move, (at least) one search, one c/p and a click. Of course to *do* the page move vandalism requires creating an account and waiting, iirc 5 days, then two clicks and typing/pasting a new title. But I may be mistaken; I am out of practice. -  Amgine | t 21:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I said consequences; nothing to do with how many clicks it takes, afterward, to restore the wiki to its previous state. (In fairness, btw, you should probably throw in a few more clicks to block the vandal, as part of the overall mop-up operation.)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Update Dec 20, 2017: 4 out of 5 articles on the front page were still written by agastya ( 2 football)
The front page of wikinews still carries the same articles that it did when I last reported here. The oldest article on that page has a "focal date" of Friday, December 8, 2017. It was written by agastya.

There are two articles waiting for Review now, both with a "focal date" of December 18, 2017:
 * African Lives Matter stages protests in Westminster London
 * written by User:FairContrib
 * United States: Amtrak train derails near Olympia, Washington
 * Written by: User: De Wikischim, User:LIVE NIEUWS and User: Yngvadottir

Presumably all articles waiting in the Review queue when I last reported here have been rejected(?):
 * US state of Alabama elects its first Democratic US Senator in 25 years
 * Fox News gets sued by Black Lives Matter protester
 * Scientific expedition to the homeland Cus D'Amato was completed with series of discoveries
 * United States Federal Communications Commission overturns Net Neutrality rules, deregulating internet service providers
 * Disney buys 21st Century Fox for US$52.4 billion
 * Ottawahitech (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me
 * If I were you, I would try to improve and write a better article, submit it for review and divorce it. That is the key, not these statistics. 106.209.244.231 (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

 * @106.209.244.231 …and if I were you I would stop giving advice to people I know little about.

 * Why try to write articles here when rules are made up on the fly and not by established policy? Take for example: Talk:African Lives Matter stages protests in Westminster London (which will soon be deleted) where 223.180.11.222 tells user:De Wikischim that two independent sources published within the last three days are required, and directs readers to: source. Anyone heading over to read this official policy will discover that it contains no such information. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Please ping me
 * I don't think that's the page to find that particular aspect of policy on. Our policies and practices evolve very slowly, following underlying core principles, but documenting them also lags behind — it took us many years of thought and hands-on experience punctuated by community discussions before we produced our WN:Newsworthiness page, for instance.  Lagging documentation is a familiar pattern (so I'm told) for small news orgs, which tend to put their time into doing rather than writing about what they do.  Atm a good place to start looking for description of current policies and best practices, other than of course asking an active reviewer, is WN:PILLARS.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * first of all, pings would not work for non registered users. Secondly, if you had read WN:SOURCE, it says: “Multiple independent sources are usually required…”, and article in question is not an OR to bypass this rule. 223.180.25.181 (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
User talk:DellaDechaineux

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:DellaDechaineux


text:
User talk:Spanmax

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Spanmax


text:
User talk:BertLee

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:BertLee


text:
Tennis: Andy Murray withdraws from Australian Open

January 4, 2018 Today, Scottish tennis player Andy Murray withdrew from the Australian Open Grand Slam tournament, the organisers announced via Twitter. Two days ago, Murray announced withdrawal from the suffering from a hip injury.

A five-time finalist at the Australian Open, Murray has not played a single competitive game since he was knocked-out of last year's Wimbledon Championship by US tennis player in the quarter-finals. Murray did not participate in the, withdrawing from the Grand Slam two days before it was to commence. Winner of three Grand Slams, the Scot is currently ranked sixteenth in the world. He was scheduled to play in Brisbane.

The 30-year-old exited in the fourth round in last year's Australian Open. Next month, Murray is to lose points earned for the fourth round. This year's tournament is scheduled to start on January 15. Murray said, "Sadly I won't be playing in Melbourne this year, as I am not yet ready to compete".


text:
User talk:NickolasGrasby

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:NickolasGrasby


text:
User talk:Wgj8391

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wgj8391


text:
User talk:Augesti

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Augesti


text:
User talk:Rtiwariv

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rtiwariv


text:
User talk:Budur Subaie

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Budur Subaie


text:
User talk:David Wiseman

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:David Wiseman


text:
User talk:Sparky6308

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sparky6308


text:
Talk:Tennis: Andy Murray withdraws from Australian Open

Review of revision 4373650 [Passed]

 * The article has to be published if it passes the review. I don't see the Publish tag. Is the article published or not? •–• 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, you messed it up by changing things. Now I have to look it over again. --SVTCobra 14:40, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not. Evidently, you did not use under review template. Moreover, the "mess" you are referring to is fixing things per the style guide. And it is quite surprising that there is no comments page created if you actually published this article using EzPr. •–• 14:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Something very strange does seem to have happened here. SVTCobra, when you submitted this review did the gadget report that the page had been modified, or did it just sort of not do part of what it was meant to?  --Pi zero (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

 * The gadget seemed to update the talk page first, then when it tried to update the article, I got an edit-conflict. --SVTCobra 15:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice if the article is not overly linked, even if I plan to write about Aus Open, saying "the upcoming 2018 Australian Open" is a) encyclopedic, and b) "2018" is redundant, because who would even say about what is to happen after one whole season -- if it is not retirement. •–• 14:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If the article is not published yet, let's move the page back to "...Aus Open". •–• 15:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No! It remains my contention that nobody calls it the Aus Open. I don't care if that is in the url of the official website. I have heard "Aussie Open" but never "Aus Open".
 * Maybe you should start reading Wikinews. Or, Deccan Herald, SBS News, FOX Sport, News.com.au -- some reliable news orgs which uses "Aus Open". •–• 15:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I still say it is a non-standard use (and I note that SBS used "Aust"). Certainly, in spoken English, only "Australian Open" or "Aussie Open" are used. Why are you insistent that it is better with "Aus Open"? --SVTCobra 15:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Another one. "Aus Open" and "Oz Open" are two other forms which are acceptable. "Aus Open" is how I prefer to use for the articles I write under this nick -- that is not the point. The problem is: why this style is a problem? Do not tell me that people haven't heard about AusOpen because we have used Twitter accounts for the source (rather than individual tweets) and it is pretty clear that people recognise Aus Open as the first grand slam of the tennis season. It really is frustrating that my choices are always questioned -- live Ganga vs the Ganges. Aus Open vs Australian Open.   Refer to Wiktionary for Oz or Aus if you are not sure. •–•  16:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is lots of informal language. You haven't explained why it is better to use an informal name and not the formal name. The title is not too long. I note that the category you created is not called "Aus Open" or "Oz Open" but rather "Australian Open". --SVTCobra 16:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming
Putting this word for the 2018 Australian Open lets the reader know immediately that is not an event that is happening now. The difference with the Brisbane event, is it is not upcoming because it is currently underway. --SVTCobra 15:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Two tennis events monitored by ATP would not coincide. Brisbane event started today, which rules out the possibility of Aus Open currently underway. •–• 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any reason to assume the reader knows that. --SVTCobra 15:36, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Links
I think it is useful to have links to the current year tournaments. Readers can quickly reach our sister project to see the draws and other information about this year's tournament. Far better than linking to the overall tournament. I linked to both because of a suggestion that the tournaments might get local links in the near future. So, I future proofed it. I disagree with the sentiment that it is "needless words". --SVTCobra 15:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Calling it "2018" is redundant. And the "future-proofing" is encyclopedic. •–• 16:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Although I sighted the edit (mostly because there were other edits piling up behind it that couldn't be sighted out of order, a very familiar awkwardness of the wiki software), I do think "encyclopedic" is a bit strong. It seems to me either approach to that paragraph is acceptable news writing, and including more information rather than less, within reason, is somewhat advantageous.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But "2018" is still obscure, and should try to omit needless words. •–• 16:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the year of the tournament is "obscure" but I have left it out since you are adamant about it. --SVTCobra 23:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 2018 is the current year. This year’s tennis season has just started. There are four grand slams and various ATP events scheduled for the year. Do you think anyone would be able to predict what body part would be injured after (at least) a year. 117.198.188.35 (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, you are not logged in. And I don't get the connection between saying it is the 2018 tournament and "predicting" what body part is injured. What??? --SVTCobra 06:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know I am not logged in. I do not login when messages are more important that who is saying, I don’t have a stable high speed connection like others, FWIW, how do you think organisers can announce a player is to miss a tournament due to hip injury which is to take place after one year? It is not even a question that they are not talking about 2018s event. 117.198.188.35 (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not get your mentality of "we don't need this word" or "mentioning the year is obscure" or "Aus is better than Australian". Does Wikinews have a new policy of conveying information in the most abbreviated format possible? Does Wikinews have a character limit like Twitter? I don't get it. Why are you arguing every little change I made ad nauseam? Did I do or say something to you? --SVTCobra 07:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

everyone has their style of writing articles. We don’t have a character limit, but shorter is better for a headline. Until and unless there is something terribly wrong with the style I prefer, and this is not about ‘2018 being obscure’, I expect you to stick to the style guide, respect the author’s choice and keep this “trauma trigger” for someone else. 117.198.188.35 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do cite the part of the Style guide (part of which I wrote) which was violated by my edits. Yes, it says headlines should be kept short. We could make it far shorter: "AusOp: Murray out". Is that better? I think not. And keep in mind, even the Style guide is not policy, merely a guideline. IMHO, you are overly protective of your exact wording of things. And, yes, I think you are triggered. --SVTCobra 08:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "AusOp: Murray Out" tell me what is it about? Which Murray are you talking about? You know, your comments are just highlighting the fact that Wikinews is for the developed first world nations. This is nothing new. And you aren't the first one, SVTCobra. Looks like you are on the project after a long pause, and you don't remember all of the things, for example, self-sighting addition of the image, or, page protection before a vandal takes advantage. Looks to me as if you are the one who is triggered by someone opposing to what you think is correct. •–• 09:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Image
Now you are saying I can't auto-confirm a revision that is a simple addition of a file photo? And then you revert it while not logged in? Please explain yourself. --SVTCobra 08:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Project policy. I don't need to explain everything to you, you are aware of these things. •–• 09:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Cite the policy! But congratulations, I am not going revert and start an edit war. You just made the article worse. Cheers; hope you are happy. --SVTCobra 10:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don’t prefer adding file photos that are not related. I don’t have a problem with it, and I would not call it “worse”, and am I happy? Well, you should never assume. •–• 10:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I need to point out the irony of you auto-sighting the removal of the photo? And how is a photo of Andy Murray (local link) not related to the article? --SVTCobra 10:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)--SVTCobra 10:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Irony? I did not sight it, but you reverted my edits. Since the article was published without it, it is totally okay for me to sight the removal of the image. It is equivalent to unaccepting the revision you had sighted. For the part where I do not use archived photos, it is my personal choice for the article, so I would not call it worse. Not all articles need to have images, this one would not have a non-archived photo since there was no conference for this announcement, but for the sake of visual media, which pizero prefers, I have been okay with or without it. But then, it is my personal choice. Preventing a policy breach, or better say trying to restore the revision when the policy was breached, I think now you are the one arguing for the sake of arguing. •–• 10:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, right. And all articles that you write must respect your personal preferences and choices. Wikinews is not a collaborative effort. I should have just given a mindless Yes review for your article and not tried to improve it in any way. Your personal preferences are paramount and come above all else, even if you must twist policy to force other people to comply. You are the perfect person for Wikinews. Please forgive me. --SVTCobra 10:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

hypocrisy at its best. Great! So the Avengers can assemble when I speak about having English (UK) as the language for Wikinews articles, and they tell me to respect one’s choice of language and punctuation mark. But when I use English (UK) or English (IN), spell “Ganga” instead of “Ganges” which is a proper noun, use “Ramzaan” instead of “Ramadan”, use the word “thrice”, say “Aus”, not add the punctuation marks if they were not in the source, you come up and tell me this. Nice job, admin. •–• 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Do we need to take this to Dispute resolution? Or maybe you want to take it all the way to Arbitration Committee? I am sorry, but I feel you are being completely irrational. --SVTCobra 11:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No, all we need to do is to end this hypocrisy. And also avoid saying someone “lolcow”, because that is not at all constructive for the project. I used to think editors were promoted to help others by taking certain precautions, listen to, and do do what editors are asking for, looking at the bigger picture. It is none of my concern what happened with you in your real life (ironically, everyone is fine with pulling my leg, when I fell of a moving train or met with an accident), but if real life and on-wiki work can’t go on together, maybe you should leave the rights. To show, there are tens of admins and reviewers, but when someone is actually looking for their help, turns out that there are less than 10% of them actually willing to look into. What would you know about asking admins on Twitter or waiting until someone is available to protect the page just when I finish review or to stop a vandal. •–• 13:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You realize, I trust, that I greatly appreciate both your writing and your reviewing on the project. From time to time your treatment of your colleagues, other Wikinewsies who like you have inside understanding of the underlying Wikinews principles like neutrality etc., becomes abrasive.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * that is nice way of putting it. What about who started it, when I removed a photo, or raised a problem on talk. 223.180.0.155 (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * By the time parties to a disagreement start asking who started it, likely the disagreement just needs to stop. Fwiw, both of the actions you mention, one could imagine doing differently.  My own approach to these sorts of situations puts a lot of emphasis on "how can I help defuse this situation, and avoid making it worse".  Wikipedia, of course, has detailed rules for how to handle disagreements about an edit to an article — and they can be very unfriendly toward anyone who doesn't walk into such a situation already an expert on precisely following the rules they invented, so that approach has problems too.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Tennis: Andy Murray withdraws from Aus Open

makeprotected •–• 14:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree. --SVTCobra 14:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Actually, no, I don't agree. (Thought this was the other talk page.) --SVTCobra 15:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's spare it for a vandal. •–• 15:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ by Pi zero. •–• 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Elbbiw

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elbbiw


text: Comments:Tennis: Andy Murray withdraws from Australian Open


text:
Category talk:Australian Open (tennis)

fill this category •–• 15:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Nadal beats Raonic to reach Australian Open semis
 * 2) Kerber wins over Serena Williams 6-4 3-6 6-4 in Aus Open 2016
 * 3) Federer beats Nishikori in Australian Open's fourth round
 * 4) Djokovic beats Murray for fourth time, wins Aus Open 2016
 * 5) Amélie Mauresmo wins Australian Open
 * 6) 6-1, 6-2, 3-6 and 6-3: Djokovic beats Federer and advances to Aus Open 2016 Final
 * 7) Murray loses to rank 50 Zverev in Australian Open's fourth round
 * 8) Tennis: Andy Murray withdraws from Australian Open
 * 9) Roger Federer wins Australian Open

 * ✅ 1 through 9 were added to the category. I sighted it on today's article. Do they really need to be sighted by a different reviewer? I would think an administrator should be allowed to auto-confirm the revision for such a straight-forward change, especially given the backlog of populating categories. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * only those who are reviewers and administrators can sight it. 117.198.177.83 (talk) 19:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, but is it against current policy for me to auto-sight the adding of a category? It seems such a minor thing, but the template suggests it has to be a different person, which seems excessive for populating categories. BTW, you are not logged in. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually, the sorts of curational edits that are small enough to be allowed to archived articles, including category changes, are also small enough to be self-sightable. (Although I have occasionally chosen not to sight a very small edit because I could see it was quite controversial, and I suspect a few times this tactic allowed me to resolve peaceably what could otherwise have turned into an edit war.)  --Pi zero (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I am going to assume that these are non-controversial and just sight them quickly myself. The articles are clearly all about this tournament. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Australian Open (tennis)


text: Category:Australian Open (tennis)

title: Category:Australian Open (tennis)