text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2017/May

What's wrong with the NPOV policy and a proposal for improvement
As a very experienced writer (worked for Gambit newspaper in New Orleans) and as a WikiNews newbie, one can't help but wonder at the many years of history of this site and yet the yawning lack of content produced. So, I've done a lot of reading into the site's policies and history to try and discern why. It's my opinion, only partially informed, that a key reason would-be authors may either not begin or not continue with contributing has to do with the NPOV policy.

It's apparent that Jimbo Wales, Wikimedia Founder, did, and likely still does believe in the NPOV viewpoint, as is thoroughly articulated here.

However, a key reason the policy is troublesome in my view is that it ignores the reality that it's completely impossible to not have a point of view on anything worth writing a news article about, and therefore the policy is asking WAY too much. (I would hope Jimbo Wales can be persuaded to my way of thinking.)

If you're thinking I'm off my rocker and don't understand what the NPOV policy is about and therefore I'm just flat out wrong, I urge you to consider these sources:

There's no such thing as unbiased journalism so lets stop pretending, by David Harsanyi

There's no such thing as objective journalism, get over it, by Andrew Kirell

The Illusion of Unbiased Journalism by Erik Flemming

Great quotes from Hunter S. Thompson musing on the question of objectivity in journalism

...I could cite many more sources of great thinking on this. In short, anyone who thinks there can ever be no-point-of-view is, in my view and that of many great thinkers, delusional. But whatever you think of my point of view, there ARE ways forward to achieve the goals of the well-meaning but misguided NPOV policy.

The important points for WikiNews have nothing to do with point-of-view; rather than arguing over the relative merits of NPOV, policy should be about a mandate to put emphasis on FACTS and, when they seem appropriate, clearly distinguish OPINION because these can more or less be objectively determined, though one can go overboard here and discourage contributions. For example, in my own first article, I originally wrote "... in preparations for the most loved event for ..." and altered it to "...in preparations for what many attendees say is the most loved event for ..." because the former use of the adjective love is subjective opinion, the latter is observed objective fact. The questions are; would anyone think the first use of "love" would be mistaken as not opinion? Would anyone be harmed by, or indeed object to, that usage? Probably not, but I thought I'd "get it right" on my first at-bat.

With an emphasis on facts and clearly distinguished opinion, writers can feel they can write what they want to write. When you tell me I must have No Point Of View, my response is; it's not even possible so why bother? It's offensive from an intellectual point of view AND doesn't serve the purposes it intends. If you think I'm mistaken about discouragement, listen to the crickets... With this many years of exposure, WikiNews should be a great many times bigger than it is today - it's clearly failing to either attract or retain sufficient contributors.

(I noted with some alarm how many stories are held up RIGHT NOW because they're disputed. Let's consider them in this discussion, too. My approach would eliminate that problem forever.)

Another question related to this is whether people should - if they can - state their biases as it pertains to the subject. For example, someone could write a potentially disputed and contentious article on the subject "Some think 'R' for 'Ridicule' Should Be Added To The 'BDS' Campaign On Israel's Apartheid System" and state their bias as, "The author believes Israel's policies against Palestinians are roughly equal to those of the anti-Black policies of the former Apartheid system in South Africa". Such an article, were the policies of this site altered to permit it, would be useful to readers by explicitly stating the author's point of view on a potentially contentious but vital topic on the Middle East and provide interesting, useful food for thought among those intellectually capable of having a rational discussion about it. What's not serving readers is preventing such articles from being published - which, by the way, is what American corporate media would do with such a story and why some Newbies to this site might ascribe Orwellian characteristics to this site when they find their article "disappeared without a trace."

If all that can get through the sieve of policy here are bland nothing articles that "no one can dispute", it's a pretty useless site since everything of any real value to have discussion about in our world will have parties on multiple sides with opinions and biases and the most informed about these - and the voices most worthy of being heard - are very often on polar opposite sides of issues. And if you think you're going to get those views presented from No Point Of View authors, you're kidding yourself because if you have no point of view, you aren't going to care very much about those discussions. Hence, crickets...

Finally, I hope it's clear that I strongly agree with the intended results of a NPOV policy, and wish to point out that a major problem with the policy is its very name and the point of view it evokes. A better name for a workable policy would be something one might call the Joe Friday policy: NBTF / LAO - Nothing But The Facts & Label All Opinion. ... Perhaps with a SYB - State Your Bias policy, to boot. I hope you will seriously consider this policy proposal - what the site's doing now doesn't appear to be working and that's a pity.
 * I think when we say "in preparations for the most loved event for", we are endorsing that it is the most loved event. But the truth is, people consider it to be the most loved. It is not our job to assume it. Like for example, if someone says, (If I recall correctly, for an article) "Beloved prime minister Shri Narendra Modi", how are you going to prove that he is indeed beloved? How do you know that? If the whole nation, each and every individual agree, then you can say so, else, it is what some, majority, most, few people think.
 * Yes of course. What if there is someone who does not like that event? He or she might be interested in something else. So instead of wildly assuming that it "is the most loved", and saying, "what many attendees say is the most loved event for", we are not factually wrong, and in the safe zone of not misreporting anything.
 * I think when we say "in preparations for the most loved event for", we are endorsing that it is the most loved event. But the truth is, people consider it to be the most loved. It is not our job to assume it. Like for example, if someone says, (If I recall correctly, for an article) "Beloved prime minister Shri Narendra Modi", how are you going to prove that he is indeed beloved? How do you know that? If the whole nation, each and every individual agree, then you can say so, else, it is what some, majority, most, few people think.
 * Yes of course. What if there is someone who does not like that event? He or she might be interested in something else. So instead of wildly assuming that it "is the most loved", and saying, "what many attendees say is the most loved event for", we are not factually wrong, and in the safe zone of not misreporting anything.
 * Yes of course. What if there is someone who does not like that event? He or she might be interested in something else. So instead of wildly assuming that it "is the most loved", and saying, "what many attendees say is the most loved event for", we are not factually wrong, and in the safe zone of not misreporting anything.

 * I do not understand why you don't think it is not possible. When it comes to writing for a news company that pays you, other factors like crowd pulling comes in the picture. A biased headlines, a misleading or provoking comment which is not cent percent correct gains more readers for that article, you have to agree. Instead of such misleading words, why not use facts? A fact used at a correct place at the correct time for a correct article eliminates the need of biased point of view.

 * You can keep on citing why NPOV id not good for news and I can keep on denying because that is what we are doing here. I am not calling any politician a monster. What a politician does, report that. Why he/she does, report that. The readers can think for themselves is that politician doing correct or not. We don't need to say "people feel XYZ" if ABC were the consequences of the act.

 * When anyone cites Wikinews, they are not citing any author. There can be more than one editors who contributed to the story. The reviewer of the story can have other point of view, IP editors can submit the articles for review... Considering these things, adding what the author thinks is not okay. The author is free to add their opinions and POVs to the comments page, but those things are not welcomed on the article. Adding it would involve controversy as some editors would not like this point of view.

 * If I say "Referring decisions helped Real Madrid", it is not neutral. A user who is Real Madrid supporter would find this offensive. But on the other hand, saying, "there were at least twelve occasions where referee's decisions were incorrect and were in favour of Real Madrid", we are not endorsing anything, and we are not saying that Real Madrid was indeed helped by the referee.

 * English Wikinews is a small community. With a limited number of users, I really can't expect Wikinews publishing 50 articles of medium length each day. I can expect two or three, but again, with a limited number of editors, this is not possible since real life commitments are also important. I have my internal exam this Monday, but still I am replying to this thread. I have not started reading for it. I want to help the project and that is what every editor wants to do. But just because we are unable to publish many articles, we are not abandoning neutrality. Can you just imagine Wikipedia adding biased point of view to each articles? Can you just imagine what would happen to the traditional Chinese Medicines related articles? Can you imagine the degree of vandalism we can observe for controversial topics? Just try to imagine all the editors allowed to add their own point of views? Articles like FC Barcelona and Real Madrid would be ruined. This will result severe reputation damage, and same is true on Wikinews. POV would lead to misleading reports since Wikinews can be edited by anyone. And it would lead to "fake news", I feel.

 * Someone from paid journalism would never understand this, but a place where anyone can write anything, things wil go out of order, and that would lead to the collapse of the project. If every story has a point of view, let the readers discover them with the facts. Facts can be really effective, but if you want to attract audience by the means of point of views, this is really not the place, in my opinion.

 * NPOV is one of those things which makes Wikinews different from other news sources. But, if you are really confident your approach would work, let's try it. Write an article in your userspace, and we will see how, why and what is wrong with it considering Wikinews is both a wiki and a news source — where "Wiki" and "news", both have equal weight. acagastya 20:10, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@acagastya I have no idea what "Real Madrid" is but it appears you've completely missed my points on several different occasions, including missing what I was actually saying about "love" (I don't agree with your interpretation about "our endorsement" but I don't care to dissect it at the moment). Here are some comments in reply:

 * What I promote is the idea that authors keep to facts while you promote the idea that a writer can have no point of view. I posit that the former is possible and the latter is impossible, and that's really the foundation of my having written anything at all. (There's a second key point below.) A point of view is held by everyone with anything to say and it's impossible not to have one, and it doesn't only belie itself with explicit statements, but also with the framing of a situation, what is discussed, what is left out, even when there's 100% "facts" stated. It should also be remembered that one person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist, so word choices in statements made can be perfectly factual based on definitions of words but still be found offensive and "conveying a point of view" and "disputed."

 * I promote the idea that if opinion is stated it must be clearly denoted. You say opinion is never OK, fine, if that's a rule. And if so, strip out all the facade of "no point of view" and just state exactly what you mean and be done with ALL the confusion. I'm hearing two policy rules from you, "Nothing But The Facts" and "No Opinions". Gee whiz, that's simple and clear AND POSSIBLE.

 * When you comment, "I do not understand why you don't think it is not possible", it leads me to strongly suspect you didn't read a single reference I pointed to. -face-palm- In short, humans come to everything they do with some kind of frame of reference we call a point of view, even if they are unaware of it. The more intelligent you are, the more experienced, the more widely read, the more likely you are to have a viewpoint that's informed by many years of data-collection and thinking.

 * You talk about the relatively few contributors to do editing and so forth and that's the whole point I was making: for an 8+ year old project with this kind of visibility, it sure hasn't caught on, now has it? If the site could attract and retain people to write, review, etc, it would grow.

 * The NPOV policy would be very neatly replaced by a completely clear an unequivocal pair of policies: Nothing But The Facts, and No Opinion. There's no not understanding it. There's no people saying to themselves, "that's impossible, so I'm not even going to bother trying.) (I myself started out by laughing at the complete lack of reality behind it.) But there ARE people who will say, "I like an all-facts news source, with no opinion." He's a heck of a lot more clear than "a no-point-of-view news source.

 * A few general thoughts.
 * Neutrality works differently on Wikinews than on Wikipedia. I wouldn't care to bet on whether Jimmy Wales understands the difference.  It is entirely possible for a featured article on either of the two projects to fail the neutrality standards of the other project; the criteria are that different.
 * To be blunt, I think our NPOV policy page on Wikinews does a really poor job of explaining. The information is there, I guess, but I think I've really gotten my deep sense of how it works from dwelling on thousands of actual articles.  I've had in mind to write an essay on Wikinews neutrality, explaining it in a much more forthright and practical way, with an eye to possibly using the essay to draft an overhaul of the policy page; but it's a big and difficult task and we've other infrastructure concerns to absorb what time I don't pour into actual news production, so of course I haven't gotten far on it yet.
 * A great deal of harm is done in the world, I think, by people claiming neutrality is impossible. Of course perfection of all kinds is impossible, and that's a deplorable excuse for not trying.  The Wikinews strategy toward neutrality uses techniques that are not, apparently, available to Wikipedia because of the different nature of what an encyclopedia is (traditionally) trying to do.
 * The Wikipedian approach to neutrality is a matter of "balance", which in a news context has been, imho, demonstrated pretty spectacularly not to work, at least as a centerpiece for neutrality strategy; obviously in the case of "fair and balanced" FOX News, but also in the case of the efforts of BBC, whose failure of neutrality in their coverage of the Scottish independence referendum was... noticed north of the border.
 * Wikinews neutrality is a key feature of the project, one of the great values we give to the world. We're an antidote for the defeatist denial that individual people can aspire to report news neutrally and so empower informed readers to make up their own minds.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero, I really appreciate your comment number two above. Your comments on "neutrality" I find interesting, but do notice that there's exactly zero connection between "neutrality" and "no point of view." A point of view is held by all of us, whether we're neutral on a subject or for or against any part involved in that subject. I think that this point is what's, for me, really at odds here. I embrace the concept of "neutrality" in terms of reporting but that doesn't mean I don't see the framework that's behind a reporter's thinking, and that's what a point of view is actually about. A reporter can be sure to only report facts. It's harder to ask them to present all facts "fairly" because they have to make choices about what to include and what to leave out and some side or other can usually find facts they want included that are left out. Both the inclusion and exclusion of facts is primarily caused by an author's point of view - sometimes called framing. And this is why my proposal has merit; simple, vastly more clear, and achievable.

In my not always humble opinion, the NPOV policy, even if it's just the policy's name, has not been successful. The fact that 8 years on the contributions are so modest is very telling. Change the name, simplify. What I'm hearing is "NBTF, NO" - Nothing But The Facts, No Opinion."

Rtroy (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Tbh, it seems clear to me you don't understand Wikinews's neutrality policy. You can't make a coherent argument for or against if you don't have a clear notion of what you're trying to be for or against. The level of activity on the project is only related to our neutrality policy in one way:  we're still here, and with everything being thrown at us that requires really powerful ideals for us to rally to — and an important part of the journalistic ideals that have enabled Wikinews to survive is our neutrality.  (We had a "fork" a few years ago, you know; at least, it was called a fork, although they didn't copy our article archives; they did copy a lot of our support infrastructure, though.  It failed while Wikinews has continued because, in attempting to streamline their process to boost output, they compromised on principles like neutrality and thus had a project that lacked a reason for people to want to contribute to it.)  --Pi zero (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero "You can't make a coherent argument for or against if you don't have a clear notion of what you're trying to be for or against" - way to go! Straight to insults, clear sign of not even trying to put up a coherent argument, and this against someone who's not even trying to argue.

OK, I get it, you feel offended someone has pointed out the project's failure. Fine, the project still exists, but at a current rate of 0.5 articles per day for the English speaking world after 8+ years of effort, sorry that you're in denial that things are working great just because you still have the teat of Wikileaks to hang off of. I'm trying to help you understand the project's failure to attract / retain a sufficient talent pool to be a truly going concern. A key part of that is the word choice. And it's certainly a coherent argument that your policy is so challenging ... in fact, I'm adopting YOUR first two bullet points as having made my case for me! Don't go edit them now to retract your words, that would be disingenuous.

As for your third point: I never made a case - would not, could not make a case - against neutrality. But you don't have a policy called "Neutrality", you have one prominently called NPOV - No Point Of View - and that is the ONLY policy I have been critical of. I even went so far as to praise the goals! Truly laudable, just HOPELESSLY UNCLEAR and that is a part of the failure. You yourself acknowledge this yet... OK, you think I insulted you. -shrug- You also COMPLETELY mischaracterize my comments when you claim I said neutrality was impossible. Horsefeathers. I said having No Point Of View is impossible! PLEASE keep to facts in evidence.

I'm offering two key ideas:

1) rename the damned policy, the current name is a loser. "Neutrality" would be a vastly better alternative. And;

2) simplify the policy. As already stated, Nothing But The Facts, No Opinion, would be about as clear and concise as could ever be needed. Yet you find you need to insult me over the contribution. Way to make friends and influence people.

I hope you'll rethink it, take less offense and realize I'm actually trying to help, and I hope that others in the community will have a less reactionary, more thoughtful view.

Rtroy (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 * My remark was not an insult nor an attack, but a diagnosis.   If you want to self-improve, and be useful to the project, take the criticism to heart.  Your remarks aren't fact-based; your latest above makes this especially clear.  Journalism is all about being fact-based.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Couple of things. We all might have point of view. But while writing here, you are not supposed to reflect your point of view on the article.
 * I don't think Rtroy is an experienced writer (at least not a journalist), not sure if a blogger. The quality of the article written by the user is not what I will expect from an experienced journalist. Besides, the files used for the article, which Rtroy said is "own work" is copyvio. This is not a trait of an experienced writer. Many bloggers are unaware in the beginning, but with time, they learn about the copyright violation. When the user says, I have no idea what 'Real Madrid' is but it appears you've completely missed my points on several different occasions, including missing what I was actually saying about 'love', what should I say. It takes a couple of seconds to search what is Real Madrid on the internet. If the user had done that, it would be clear what I was trying to say. Policies? I really don't think that is true, at least in this case. Newbies generally do not read the policies and the guidelines. Else, they would do a lot of things better (like the date format, or the lede section, or the way to cite the sources, or focus) Okay. The last point is not a strong one, but you can't ignore that. acagastya 17:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Actually, they claim to have considerable experience in professional journalism. --Pi zero (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

One could perhaps always write a neutral article, and an opinion in comments? If comments namespace ignites an increase in audience, I would personally not horribly mind (so long as the said audience has an active interest in formulating a comprehensive view on the subject). --Gryllida (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Indeed, when BRS was here a few months ago xe used that technique several times, adding a comment on the opinions page once xyr article was published. --Pi zero (talk) 02:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 * I have not seen any Wikimedia policy requiring "No point of view": NPOV is rendered as "Neutral point of view."
 * I suspect that we all agree that perfect objectivity is impossible but still worth striving for.
 * Even "facts" are never beyond dispute: W. Edwards Deming said there's no true value to any number obtained as a result of a measurement:  If you change the method of measurement, you will likely get a different answer.
 * I wish to agree with both user:Pi zero and Rtroy, if that's possible: The fact that Wiknews has survived more than 8 years is an achievement, and we must be careful in pushing changes that we don't jeopardize the future of this project.
 * However, I believe there are substantial opportunities for growth.
 * I've submitted a proposal for a "Birds of a Feather" session to discuss these issues at Wikimania 2017. On or about May 13, I plan to change that Submission from "Draft" to "Final";  prior to that date, anyone can edit the content of the proposal.  After that date, comments are welcomed in the associated "Discussion" page.  If you'd like to attend, you can add your ID under "Interested attendees".
 * Beyond that, I think there may be something to learn from comparing the experiences of the different language versions of Wikinews. I've initiated such a discussion at m:Talk:Wikinews.  The main article there,  Wikinews, includes a table summarizing activity in the different language versions of Wikinews.  On 2017-04-28, that table reported that over 222,000 articles have been published, summing over 33 different languages, out of a total of 3.47 million submitted.  This gives us a publication rate of 6.4 percent = 222,000/3,470,000.  That ratio ranged from 0.62 percent for Sindhi to 62 percent for Serbian; it was 0.77 percent for English. I think the high acceptance rate for articles in Serbian have helped to make it the language with the most articles on Wikinews -- and the low acceptance rate in Sindhi has helped generate the fewest articles of any language;  of course the fact that there are so few Sindhi speakers means that we could not expect them to have a huge number of articles.
 * DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Truth be told, I'm no longer as hopeful as I once was about resolving misunderstandings with Rtroy, because their remarks here and, especially, elsewhere lead me to doubt their sincere interest in a fact-based view of the world. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Professional journalist [sic] who uploaded someone else's photo as their own at Wikimedia Commons? Agastya Chandrakant   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰  17:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous; it could be a misunderstanding. Commons DRs: 1, 2, 3.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A small remark concerning Serbian Wikinews; I still owe you a longer comment on the general issues of your proposal, I have not forgotten. Serbian Wikinews tried something that did not work out well. As I understand it, they had a successful community there until they introduced a bot for importing news from some public-domain news outlets.  Public-domain news outlets are, rather reliably, propaganda on somebody's part (VOA is one such), so doing that is sure to be abandoning neutrality.  It did cause their article count to rise rapidly.  It also killed the momentum of their community and caused their contributor base to shrink; and, btw, the resulting large archive does not get read — in contrast to ours at English Wikinews, a major asset that, btw, does get read.  So the large article count of Serbian Wikinews is not something desirable to imitate.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

What data to collect on different Wikis?
The previous section on "What's wrong with the NPOV policy ..." was getting rather long, and I'd like to get feedback on a related but a slightly different topic:
 * What summaries exist of lessons learned from different language communities, similar to the comment Pi zero made about the Serbian Wikinews community?
 * What data should we collect on different Wikis?
 * Might it make sense to try to survey contributors to the different language Wikinews communities? If yes, what questions should we ask?  How can we summarize the information?

I had mentioned the Serbian Wikinews, because it still officially has the largest number of officially published articles, though it's no longer listed on the www.wikinews.org landing page. Pi zero offered a hint of the problem: They did something to cause their contributor base AND their audience to shrink.

Wikinews includes a table summarizing data on all the different language versions of Wikinews, which is manually copied periodically (daily?) from wikistats.wmflabs.org/display.php?t=wn, if I understand correctly.

I don't know how hard it would be to add other data to this table -- or to get such data in other ways -- but I think it would be good to have the number of views added to this table along with stats for the past 10 days, month, quarter or year. DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

And might some of us be able to create a reasonably useful face-to-face discussion at Wikimania in Montreal, along the lines of Submissions/Building Wikinews into the premier news site worldwide -- possibly offering videoconferencing for virtual attendance by a few interested but unable to be physically in Montreal then? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 * A general observation. When I first came to Wikinews, it was quickly apparent to me that the site documentation wasn't uniformly up-to-date (although parts of it were quite good), and almost as quickly apparent why.  Everyone here put practically all their volunteered time on the project into the processes of actual news production, leaving infrastructural concerns starved for time.  There's a certain symmetry in it: individual articles are handled especially quickly, infrastructural work happens especially slowly.  I'm told the under-documentation is typical of small news orgs; it's the big operations like AP etc. who manage to write up their practices in detail.  I figured on providing infrastructure effort, and set out to learn the living tradition of the project; of course I later got deeply involved with the day-to-day news production myself, as a necessary measure to keep things moving while I develop the infrastructure needed.  Over the past few years we have managed to get some more of the living tradition written down, here and there; notably, WN:Never assume, WN:Newsworthiness, WN:Tips on reviewing articles, and WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing (that last one is mostly assembled from standard review comments polished by hundreds or thousands of repetitions).  I've been meaning to write an essay on neutrality, because the policy page on the subject is so bad I don't even link to it in reviews.  But there's also wider perspective, which I do hope I can capture in a reply to you on my user talk; and, just saying, this is why it's not all neatly written up.  --Pi zero (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Inventing the future is never tidy.  Perfect documentation can never exist.  It's always either not enough or too much or poorly organized, and often all three simultaneously.  I know I should write for my audience, and I try, but it's often inadequate.  W. Edwards Deming told a friend, "You never complete [a writing project]:  You abandon it."
 * My research on EffectiveDefense.org convinced me of the central role of the media, as I documented in Winning the War on Terror. I'm further convinced that there is a market niche for a news web site that would automatically adjust to the needs and interests of every user.  This news site would likely reduce political corruption by providing an optimal match between political jurisdictions and the target service area / market for each news story.  I think we can grow Wikinews to fill that niche and in so doing attract an audience larger than Wikipedia and maybe even Google.  This vision is motivating this post and my proposal for a session on this at Wikimania 2017.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikinews:Water cooler/policy in other languages?
As of 2017-05-14, I saw that the "Languages" heading on the left listed nothing underneath except "Add links". Then I found es:Wikinoticias:Café, being the Spanish-language equivalent of Water cooler. When I tried to "Add links" to that, I got, "The page you wanted to link with is already attached to an item on the central data repository which links to Wikinews:Water cooler on this site. Items can only have one page per site attached.  Please choose a different page to link with." After struggling for a few minutes trying to figure out what that meant, I realized that es:Wikinoticias:Café had a bijective (one-to-one) link with es:Wikinoticias:Café, and the software therefor refused to allow me to link in that way from Water cooler/policy to es:Wikinoticias:Café. Why do these have to be bijective (one-to-one)? DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have any idea how Wikidata works. The WN:Water cooler and WN:Water cooler/policy perhaps should be different entities. (Russian Wikinews have forums called 'general', 'tech', 'copyright', 'international', 'administrators'; they do not have a policy forum. We are linking to their language from our WN:Water cooler page, which is a good thing.) --Gryllida (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I imagine moving WN:AAA to Water cooler/administrators could be something useful for cross-wiki collaboration. —mikemoral (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What advantage are you seeing in that? --Pi zero (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you can link a page to Wikidata no-matter what its name is? If all else fails, redirect Water cooler/administrators to WN:AAA. I do not see Wikidata requiring all languages to follow the same naming schemes as a reasonable way forward. --Gryllida (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can make those links, yes. The goal is to just have pages which are the best approximation of an idea linking to one another. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikidata doesn't work well as a device for automatically generating interwiki links. Part of that is because it's undesirable to create a single point of failure by centralizing control, and also undesirable to remove control from the local projects where contributors concerned with those local projects should be encouraged; but also there is a structural problem because of the way Wikidata generates the automatic interwiki links.  Wikidata has pages called "items", and a given page on a given-language Wikinews can only be listed on one item (the Wikidata software forbids multiple listings of a given Wikinews page).  Wikinews pages of different languages are automatically given interwiki links to each other if-and-only-if they are both listed on the same Wikidata item.  There is no way of causing the automatic links to be asymmetric, and no way of making multiple pages on one-language Wikinews all interwiki to a single page on another-language Wikinews.  Which means, in the very likely case that two different-language Wikinewses do not organize their topic-category hierarchies in the same way, that readers of various Wikinews projects will be systematically deprived of incoming and outgoing interwiki links that sensibly ought to be there.  All of which is why English Wikinews has a policy of adding Wikidata links but not removing the local interwiki markup once Wikidata has been informed.  (Wikipedia also suffers from the same deprivation of interwikis due to different decomposition of topics in different languages, btw; no, I don't have examples at my fingertips.)  My early impression was that Wikidata was supposed to fix a problem with interwiki links by guaranteeing that interwikis would be added without an army of bots having to notice they were missing; which it does, except of course that it introduced this passel of other problems — I can see how an alternative arrangement might solve all the problems simultaneously, but like so much that I can see how to do, it's waiting on semi-automation reaching a sufficiently sophisticated stage.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Subvariety

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Subvariety


text:
User talk:M.G.Easun

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:M.G.Easun


text:
User talk:环球峰

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:环球峰


text:
User talk:Q84927941686

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please stop your disruptive editing. This will be your only warning. --SVTCobra 12:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

title: User talk:Q84927941686


text:
User talk:EquitableCanine

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:EquitableCanine


text:
User talk:Johnson karnak

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Johnson karnak


text:
User talk:মোহাম্মাদ রাকিব উদ্দিন

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:মোহাম্মাদ রাকিব উদ্দিন


text:
User talk:今里未知香リマスター

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:今里未知香リマスター


text:
User talk:WSM01

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Blanking?
This seems a bit extreme, as a measure on another user's contributions. Admittedly, there is a spam-ish quality to the set of contributions; perhaps a hatnote would be more appropriate, though. There's the problem of what hatnote to use; many situations are covered by notnews, there's Article flags, and a much longer (but less organized) list at Category:Article templates. I sometimes roll my own, such as

which produces

--Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:WSM01


text:
Conductor Jeffrey Tate dies aged 74

June 5, 2017 Conductor Sir died on Friday. He was born on April 28, 1943 in, England with and.

Tate moved with his family to, and attended school there. Despite his disabilities, he achieved a four-decade career conducting and  music, following a medical degree from  and medical residency at, London. He began in with a scholarship and was a   in 1971.

He recorded ten complete operas with director. He also assisted with  at Bayreuth in 1976, and later conducted the complete Ring himself more than twenty times, and the complete Lulu on its premier at the  in 1979.

He was knighted six weeks before his death, for his services to music, as part of the.

He was in, when he died, reportedly in rehearsal due to a heart attack, at the age of 74.

title: Conductor Jeffrey Tate dies aged 74


text:
User talk:Yukkuri5959

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yukkuri5959


text:
User talk:Raphael0202

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Raphael0202


text:
User talk:Yugiohji

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yugiohji


text:
User talk:Fabio Daziano

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fabio Daziano


text:
User talk:Mmcclos

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mmcclos


text:
User talk:DBZFan30

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:DBZFan30


text: File:Jeffrey Tate.PNG

title: File:Jeffrey Tate.PNG


text:
User talk:Roberto625

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Roberto625


text:
User talk:RevaGoin06480

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:RevaGoin06480


text:
User talk:StephaineMcFarla

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:StephaineMcFarla


text:
User talk:Giovanniscoto

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Giovanniscoto


text:
User talk:Praveenkumar35871

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Praveenkumar35871


text:
User talk:SenaidaQ44

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:SenaidaQ44


text:
User talk:Dr Prince Manchanda

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dr Prince Manchanda


text:
User talk:Longo93

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Longo93


text:
User talk:Bobbybobbie

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bobbybobbie


text:
User talk:VLAD2000

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:VLAD2000


text:
User talk:Yakinr

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yakinr


text:
User talk:BChartrand

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:BChartrand


text:
User talk:Astridela

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Astridela


text:
User talk:SceptileKing

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:SceptileKing


text:
User talk:Sir. Paulord

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sir. Paulord


text:
User talk:Z.A.Sheikh

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Z.A.Sheikh


text:
User talk:Frankbp

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Frankbp


text:
User talk:Cpaaoi

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cpaaoi


text:
User talk:AjayTO

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:AjayTO


text:
User talk:Riley Cohen

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Riley Cohen


text:
User talk:I k h

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:I k h


text:
Talk:Conductor Jeffrey Tate dies aged 74

Ringing endorsement
Are you talking about Wagner's Ring saga or is A ring of his own another work? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I closed wrong the italic, it´s Ring, Regards!!! Esteban (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Request fix
editprotected The passage "was a at Royal Opera House répétiteur" is incoherent. Looking at the pre-review version, I think removing "at" is the most accurate fix. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

 * I agree with your assessment. Fixed.  Thanks.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Indiatodaynetworks

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Indiatodaynetworks


text:
User talk:خالد الطراونة

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:خالد الطراونة


text:
User talk:You mad bro?

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:You mad bro?


text:
User talk:Elkha walid

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elkha walid


text:
User talk:Mahar Ahmed

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mahar Ahmed


text:
User talk:Shifazmuhammad

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shifazmuhammad


text:
User talk:Alchemylinux

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 08:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alchemylinux


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/Translating articles

Proposal to improve Wikinews
News needs to be NEW. We have a constant battle with time. Often the articles get stale and we feel bad about losing an important article.

There are a couple of things which should be highlighted.

• First: Often there is only one author for an article. It is primarily due to the factor of time. We can't wait for someone to add/contribute to the article.

• Second: And this one is very general. Often, we are free, and wandering around the Wikinews project. Sometimes reading the archived articles and discussions, or sometimes, the other language Wikinews.

I often do that. I search for interesting articles on Spanish Wikinews, sometimes German, French and Russian too. Sometimes, it is really helpful. Instead of wandering here and there [on the internet] for a story amongst so many crowd-pulling articles with misleading headlines.

So, what I have to say is: When you are free (let's assume you speak two languages A and B and your home wiki is A), please go to B Wikinews and translate an article from B to A. And at the same time, translate one article from A and submit it for review on B.

Translating articles from one language to another is better than writing from scratch. And it saves time. But please note that each language Wikinews has different policy for foreign language sources.

It saves a lot of time, and I know because I have tried it. Other editors on A and/or B can help you adding something to the article, if this increases participation.

So, you see, one user, who was active only on A Wikinews is now fairly active member of B Wikinews and is also helping A Wikinews to improve the output.

When I counted, there were 33 Wikinews. I am not asking you to dream about each WIkinews write a different story and due to translations, we can have 33 articles on 33 projects. No, with the current number of reviewers, this is something I would call impossible.

But, you see, with time and experience, more and more editors can be capable to review articles. Besides, when you contribute to A and B, so, sooner or later, you can review on both the languages. About "reviewer" status, there is something I would like to add later.

So, we might not be able to publish 33 articles, but we can surely improve output of all the Wikinews. I was talking about "one user who knows A and B". Consider other editors knowing A and C; E and F; X, Y and A; Z and C and other combinations which makes a network. I have been trying to create a table of users vs languages they know with their proficiency and user rights.

I request all of the users to use the babel templates on their userpages. And if you do not mind, time zones. Users for the Original Reporting and accredited reporters, please provide geographical information if you are okay with sharing that information. Country, city or province, whatever you this is correct.

I request the admins to prepare a list of admins, reviewers and active editors.

Now, there are some very important things, like: what are the policies of various language Wikinews.

Each language has its own practices. So, it is very important that we understand each policy, and finally, create a policy so that the articles are acceptable on every Wikinews.

I am not asking you to abandon your local guidelines. You can and may continue writing articles as per those guidelines. The others may choose to translate it, and add those features so that it is globally acceptable.

There is also a probability that nobody translates it. Many factors including things in real life can affect that. But our aim is to improve all of the Wikinews together.

If we try to stick to the threshold policy, made by considering all of the policies of various projects, we can produce better news articles.

The main challenge is to know which articles to translate? So, I thought, why not create a page on any Wikinews, which contains a table. It will have article headlines and all languages in which we have Wikinews project. Add a tick, star, plus or any fixed symbol next to the headlines for which it is written.

So, when an editor visits the page, he or she can see what are the current articles (make sure you mention the date on which the event took place). See for which languages it has been translated and if there is a language he or she can translate, do it.

I would not expect a Canadian editor to know or understand Russian (for example) or a Polish to understand Arabic (for example), but it is not necessary. But speaking for general public and to make this task [understanding only the headlines] simpler, editors can use machine translation.

But this should be only done when you (editors) are free, on Wikinews and probably looking for something to write.

This will improve the content of Wikinews as well as contributors.

Editors who can speak more than one languages, please help translating [local] policies, style guide and other [important] regulations.

If you have any idea to make "looking for the translated articles in the table" better, please share with us.

Thank you very much for your time and patience.

The entire content is licensed under CC0 1.0/Public Domain. acagastya 08:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 * Have a look at the UserBabel matrix. link acagastya 09:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 * A miscellaneous note: It's my understanding that the one-author thing, or at least one-primary-author thing, is only partly because of the time pressure.  It also is partly because of the need for a consistent style and smooth flow throughout.  There is interesting discussion of how this sort of thing is handled here and in msm at the talk page for 2012 Featured Article "Observing the 2012 Human Trafficking Awareness Day in the US, and wider world".  --Pi zero (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Is this why you doublechecked my language listing a few days ago? Whew!  I thought it was something else! Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Gufeicheng

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gufeicheng


text:
User talk:Леонид Пронченко художник

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Леонид Пронченко художник


text:
Seven killed, forty-eight injured in attack on London Bridge

June 5, 2017

Saturday night in the UK, three men wearing what were later found to be fake suicide vests drove a van into crowds on, then exited the van at and began to stab people with blades, killing seven and injuring at least 48. All three were shot and killed by police, who went on to arrest at least twelve other people. Militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant claimed responsibility.

Prime Minister Theresa May says that the attacks on Westminster Bridge, Manchester Arena, and now London Bridge were not connected through any known network but did attribute the attack to the "evil ideology of extremism". According to the BBC, a witness to the attack heard one or more of the perpetrators say "this is for ."

"Enough is enough," said May. "There is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country. So we need to become far more robust at identifying it and stamping it out [...] That will require some difficult and often embarrassing conversations. We need to live our lives not in a series of separated, segregated communities but as one truly United Kingdom."

The Muslim Council of Britain condemned the attacks: "These acts of violence were truly shocking and I condemn them in the strongest terms. Muslims everywhere are outraged and disgusted at these cowards who once again have destroyed the lives of our fellow Britons. That this should happen in this month of Ramadan, when many Muslims were praying and fasting only goes to show that these people respect neither life nor faith" said the organization's Secretary General,.

Yesterday morning there was no train service to London Bridge station. Because the site was still cordoned off, many people had to take miles-long detours, often on foot, to get to work or else had to wait outside for long periods. Security office Mohammed Osman told the press: "I'm not feeling worried. I'm strong enough. These enemies are trying to divide us but we have to be together."

While most of the country's political parties have decided to suspend campaigning temporarily, the upcoming general elections scheduled for Thursday have not been cancelled.

According to the BBC, this attack differs from the one in Manchester Arena because creating a bomb requires sophisticated technical skill and operating vans and knives does not.

Some of the people injured in the attacks have been released from hospitals; as of yesterday, others were still reported in critical condition.


text:
User talk:Wibbler71

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wibbler71


text:
Talk:Seven killed, forty-eight injured in attack on London Bridge

Terror
Wikinews must never describe someone as a terrorist, nor describe an action as an act of terrorism, in Wikinews's own voice. This should be gut instinct by now. --Pi zero (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Title's fixed. I'm feeling like that second bit is a little uncalled for.  I generally use first titles as placeholders. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem also occurs, and thus needs fixing, in the second paragraph of the current draft. --Pi zero (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (Btw, re the second bit of my first remark: it seems likely you imagined it spoken in a different tone of voice than I did.)  --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a tone issue. Those happen on the Internet but I don't think this is one of those times.
 * You do know you're allowed to fix it yourself, right? This would be the bigger disconnect for me.  This is a collaborative project, so it seems incongruous to me that you would spend sixteen words plus a ping to tell me about a problem with a single word instead of correcting said single word and, if you felt it necessary to say "you missed a spot," why you wouldn't perform both actions.  Surely the article text action is more important than the talk page action. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You know what? Previous conversations have led me to believe we're in the same time zone, which means you got up about as early as I did and are reading about terrorist attacks on a Sunday morning.  Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is tone. Another thing that happens on the Internet (and irl) is negative interpretations/feelings getting amplified by a positive feedback loop between parties; I do admit to feeling a bit put upon for a reasonable remark. Off hand, I can name three reasons for me to remark rather than doing it myself.  In no particular order:  I'm a reviewer so I should minimize what significant changes I make myself in order to preserve my independence, not wanting to have to disqualify myself from reviewing the article.  In the long run (beyond merely this one article) it seems to me likely your articles will benefit more this way than the other.  And, lest we forget, it also appears you might be actively working on the article so that if I edited it directly, and especially if I renamed it, that might cause an edit conflict. I've never made a particular secret that I'm based in central Massachusetts, although this morning it happens I had a task irl requiring me to get up at 4am (that'd be 0800 UTC).  Perhaps I come across as being in a later time zone because it often takes me a while to get going in the morning.  I seem to recall hearing something about happenings in London yesterday evening.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not your tone. It's the qualitative judgment about my progress on Wikinews as if you were Teacher and I was your student and I don't like that.  It makes me uncomfortable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4320239 [Passed]

 * That rant is beautiful. It's not like they can't say "a previous version of this article said..." All that would do is impress upon the public that there is a difference in the reliability of just-breaking and carefully considered news. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Morad bajjy

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Morad bajjy


text:
User talk:LUMEA 2017

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:LUMEA 2017


text:
User talk:The stendhal

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:The stendhal


text:
User talk:Hvtvp BDN

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hvtvp BDN


text:
User talk:Socialeyez

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Socialeyez


text:
User talk:نلانات

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:نلانات


text:
User talk:Simochaw

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Simochaw


text:
User talk:محمد الودغيري

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:محمد الودغيري


text: Comments:Curiosity Rover analysis suggests chemically complex lake once graced Mars's Gale crater


text:
User talk:TheMacDonald

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:TheMacDonald


text:
User talk:Neelansh koshta

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Neelansh koshta


text:
User talk:BureResistance

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:BureResistance


text:
User talk:Wobbytime

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wobbytime


text:
User talk:AmyL87

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:AmyL87


text:
User talk:Langford887

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Langford887


text:
User talk:NotOfImportanceToYou

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:NotOfImportanceToYou


text:
User talk:Bing200

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bing200


text:
User talk:Ahmed abd alkreem

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ahmed abd alkreem


text:
User talk:BobaFentanyl

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:BobaFentanyl


text:
User talk:Laughing Coyote

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Laughing Coyote


text:
User talk:Youngeagle87

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Youngeagle87


text:
User talk:Chiara.delsorbo22

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chiara.delsorbo22


text:
User talk:Cecelia1657

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cecelia1657


text:
User talk:Brahimskioud

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Brahimskioud


text:
User talk:Toure Stephen

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Toure Stephen


text:
User talk:Primogenie

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Primogenie


text:
User talk:Storiated

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Storiated


text:
User talk:Mr. Cissé

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mr. Cissé


text:
User talk:Mcmoberly

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mcmoberly


text:
User talk:TheRandomLabs

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:TheRandomLabs


text:
User talk:Sardarsaleem5

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sardarsaleem5


text:
User:You mad bro?

You mad bro? (talk) 05:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User:You mad bro?


text:
User talk:BMVRichard

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:BMVRichard


text:
User talk:J pulido

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:J pulido


text:
User talk:SilentNinjaZero

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:SilentNinjaZero


text:
User talk:Raoufrahiche

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Raoufrahiche


text:
User talk:Isaac Geremias

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Isaac Geremias


text:
User talk:Sachin kumar das

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sachin kumar das


text:
User talk:MiltieP

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:MiltieP


text:
User talk:32ciN

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:32ciN


text:
User talk:Wikihowph

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikihowph


text:
User talk:Remydimauro

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Remydimauro


text:
User talk:Shubhamplank

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shubhamplank


text:
User talk:Dx444

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dx444


text:
User talk:Tlc66

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tlc66


text:
User talk:Samih rachid

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Samih rachid


text:
User talk:Алёна2525

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Алёна2525


text:
User talk:Capt'n London

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Capt'n London


text:
Judge declares mistrial in Bill Cosby sexual assault case

June 20, 2017

On Saturday, Judge Steven O'Niell of, Pennsylvania declared a in the trial of U.S. actor Bill Cosby for sexual assault because the jury had become deadlocked, unable to arrive at a unanimous guilty or not guilty verdict. Prosecutors immediately announced plans to retry the case.

Brian McMonagle, one of Cosby's lawyers, addressed the jury, "We came here looking for an acquittal but like that song says, 'You can't always get what you want. But sometimes you get what you need.'"

The jurors had deliberated for a total of 53 hours, longer than the testimony of all witnesses combined. They had already declared themselves deadlocked Thursday morning, at which time Judge O'Niell told them to return to deliberations and try again. On Friday, they emerged to request copies of previous testimony and phone transcripts.

During their deliberations, the jury asked to review the testimony of alleged victim Andrea Constand, particularly her testimony about the 2004 night the alleged assault took place, which produced over 300 pages of transcripts. Constand claims that, in 2004 when she was working for, Cosby invited her to his home, where he gave her pills that left her "immobilized" and unable to speak and then touched her breasts and genitals and placed her hand on his exposed genitals. Cosby claims their contact was consensual and that the pills he gave her were ordinary Benadryl, though he has admitted on-record that he gave women for sex in the 1970s. Cosby was accused of three charges of indecent assault, these being assaulting Constand without her consent; whilst she was unconscious; and after using drugs to impair her ability to give consent. On each charge, a guilty verdict could have placed Cosby, now 79, in prison for up to ten years. Many other women have claimed that Cosby assaulted them as well, with specifics ranging from inappropriate touching to rape, but the for many of these complaints has expired, meaning that the crime happened too long ago for the government to legally prosecute Cosby. However, Pennsylvania law does allow for the testimony of such victims in other sexual assault trials, and one of these women, Kelly Johnson, testified in last week's proceedings.

Constand did file a complaint with police in 2005, and the district attorney at the time,, decided against charging Cosby. Constand then sued Cosby in civil court and the matter was settled with an undisclosed sum. However, during his deposition for this civil case, Cosby admitted on the record to giving women quaaludes.

When asked why he thought the jury was unable to come to a unanimous verdict in this case, former Philadelphia prosecutor Kevin Harden Junior said that the jurors probably had doubts regarding Constand's credibility and cited the fact that only one of Cosby's other accusers had been allowed to testify: "By limiting evidence of other accusers, the Court focused the jury on whether the prosecution presented enough credible evidence to convict Cosby of this particular assault. [...] It would be reasonable, based on the evidence presented, for the jurors to agree that Cosby is a sexual predator and still disagree on a verdict as to the assault of Constand."

law professor Carl Tobias commented on the prospects for a new trial: "The fact that the case turned substantially on one person's testimony may have made it difficult to win and the defense counsel made many efforts to undercut her testimony. The retrial happens next, and the prosecution may try to call other accusers."


text:
User talk:Simo reus

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Simo reus


text:
User talk:Gilbertha

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gilbertha


text:
User talk:Tarwireyi

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tarwireyi


text:
User talk:Voyo23

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Voyo23


text:
User talk:LannaM

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:LannaM


text:
User talk:Mvwings

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mvwings


text:
User talk:Ombú6

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ombú6


text:
User talk:Roland Bostock

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Roland Bostock


text:
User talk:45yukisan

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:45yukisan


text:
User talk:Mr.serpush

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mr.serpush


text:
User talk:Tetosoft

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tetosoft


text: Comments:Seven killed, forty-eight injured in attack on London Bridge


text:
User talk:Wikilurker02

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikilurker02


text:
User talk:Mjmjmtl

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mjmjmtl


text:
User talk:Leg0550

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leg0550


text: Comments:Conductor Jeffrey Tate dies aged 74


text:
User talk:LeCroc001

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:LeCroc001


text: Talk:Leo Varadkar becomes first openly gay elected Taoiseach of Ireland, succeeds Enda Kenny


text:
User talk:Chaelrs555

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chaelrs555


text:
User talk:Kylebricker

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kylebricker


text:
User talk:B SYED ABDUL RAHIM

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:B SYED ABDUL RAHIM


text:
User talk:Sinogkg

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sinogkg


text:
User talk:Paulobuchsbaum

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:47, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Paulobuchsbaum


text:
User talk:Cassiopeia

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

UFC 214: Jon Jones reclaims light heavyweight title against bitter rival Daniel Cormier with brutal TKO
Hi. Glad to see your interest in contributing to Wikinews. Our initial learning curve can be a bit steep, and we know it and try to help folks along with it; a good principle is to keep in mind that each article is a learning experience, especially the first few ones submitted: one does one's best on each article, learns what one can, and then, whatever the outcome for that article, one moves on — that's the nature of news, it keeps moving.

In this case, I noted some basic style problems, which I described in my review comments. Naturally, I don't know what other problems may have been lurking, that would become evident later in a full review. Alas, it also took the article longer to get reviewed than we would like; that does sometimes happen, even to experienced Wikinewsies, although, hopefully, once you get experienced at Wikinews writing so you're producing articles that look like they will be easy and rewarding to review, this increases the likelihood that the article will get reviewer attention sooner (though it's never a guarantee).

You may find WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing of interest. If you've worked with Wikipedia enough to identify with its workflow, you may find For Wikipedians of interest.

Welcome to Wikinews. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the comments and advice. Will look into the suggestions and learn from the mistakes. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Football: Paris Saint-Germain pays world record €222m to sign Neymar
Congratulations! The article is published. Well, there is a scope of improvement, please see the edit history and talk page comments.
 * you for taking so much time to review the piece and will take note on the comments. Appreciate it.

Bayern vs Borussia DFL Supercup
Are you planning to write about Der Klassiker DFL Supercup? The match is tomorrow. I would be happy to review it as soon as possible. Just a suggestion, try to find those sources which would cover broader information so total number of sources could be minimised. Of course, if you can't find it in one, go for another. And maybe you might want to see some CAT:Football Match Reports for archived articles for help. Good luck! acagastya PING ME! 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Will write it and thank you in advance for helping up.
 * Let me know if you are going to write. Else I would have to do it. (By the way, User:Ymnes of Dutch Wikinews told me about Netherlands vs Denmark UEFA Women's Euro 2017. You would like to write about?) (Also, Usain Bolt finished third in 100m race, that might interest you) Um, you should join Wikinews (and English Wikinews') IRC channel. That is #wikinews and #wikinews-en on freenode,net. (Just wondering if you use Telegram. We have a group for Wikinewsies) acagastya PING ME! 04:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * draft is up in development section. Need help to rework as I don't have in dept knowledge of thier rivalry history and the soccer report format. I am still editing it. You can have a look.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will see. This would also act as the article which would help you learn how to write a match report. (Is the development on-wiki? I can't see it. Please share the link.) acagastya PING ME! 06:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Football: Bayern Munich beat Borrusia Dortmund on penalties (2-2) (5-4 penalty) to retain Supercup titl (it is a draft- a little messy still) CASSIOPEIA (talk) 06:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. By the way, I don't think we need to explain the whole lot of rivalry, as this is a match report. We can say it is "Der Klassiker (German classic), featuring two of the most successful clubs in Germany". That would suffice, I think. What do you say? (If you feel like cutting the history part, remove it. If you feel you want that in the article, then it is okay. But remember, we do not list the sources we have not used -- meaning, if you remove the history of rivalry, you need to remove the source which you had used for it) But, you could highlight about the recent transfers from Bayern and Borussia (Sebastian Rode, Mario Götze, Mats Hummels, Robert Lewandowski) acagastya PING ME! 06:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not forget to submit it for review once you are done. acagastya PING ME! 06:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * the rivalry story comes from only one source (Fox sport 2017) in sequential concise format, except Mario Gotze transfer fee (from Guardian 2013). I need help on the score card format, it does not look right and not sure how to format (own goal) in the table. T Move to review now. and thanks in advance. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you mind if I trim the rivalry part? I think it is really too much for a match report (we son;t even do that for El Clásico) Of course, you can say no. acagastya PING ME! 07:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We could trim that or just mention a few points sum up the rivalry history. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Talking about Champions League final which happened in 2013 is really of no use, we can say about last year's DFB Pokal (Bayern defeated Dortmund) and DFL-Super Cup (Bayern defeated Dortmund) and Goetz, Hummels, and Rode switched the clubs last summer. (See DFB-Pokal Final: Bayern wins 4-3 in Der Klassiker final, Mats Hummels completes Bayern signing, Sebastian Rode signs four-year deal with Borussia Dortmund and Götze to make Dortmund return, Schürrle completes Dortmund offensive lineup) acagastya PING ME! 07:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

- your call Acagastya.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 08:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Sure! acagastya PING ME! 08:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Tennis?
Are you interested in tennis also? Defending champion Stan Wawrinka would not participate in the US Open, he posted on Facebook saying he is out for 2017. You might want to write about it. acagastya PING ME! 18:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * - Let me see what I can do. I am into sports, especially MMA, the faster growing sport for the past 5 years, and I am interested in politics and science as well.
 * Oh that is great! I cover some sports articles. (Which of course, someone else has to review) But if you write, I can also review it — making things happen quicker. Which sport do you think you would like to write about? (So that I can suggest you, or even request to cover, if I can't) Let me know if it is too much for you, (as you are new, and some of these things might not be easy; I remember when I started, it was with football articles, and I had to struggle a lot!) We would decrease the speed. Thank you. acagastya PING ME! 02:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * UFC (mixed martial arts), rugby, tennis, basketball and track and field. Do suggest for I welcome that.
 * There is some sports event in London -- and it might be the last appearance for Usain Bolt. That might also interest you. acagastya PING ME! 06:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Acagastya, will work on Usian Bolt article. His last run would be on next week, if Jamaica make it to final on the 4x100 and I believe they will. For now I am gathering the background info. Will update you accordingly.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

*last 100m race. acagastya PING ME! 07:47, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * yes 4x100m :).The 100m race has just finished and Usian came 3rd. The 4x100m is scheduled on August 12. Should we go for his last 100m or or his last race for the article?CASSIOPEIA (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * How about Bolt finishes third in his last 100m race in Athletics World Championship? acagastya PING ME! 08:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok Acagastya. will work on it and ping you tmr when it is ready to review.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The sooner, the better :-) acagastya PING ME! 08:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Calling Usain Bolt "the fastest man on earth" is okay. But calling him "world’s greatest sprinter" is not all all neutral. acagastya PING ME! 13:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Have tried to put caption and credit image, but it did not sure. Kindly help. Have a look. Thank you.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

US president Trump signs Russian sanctions into law
Sorry. We could not review it on time. acagastya PING ME! 06:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cassiopeia


text:
User talk:Machine Elf

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Machine Elf


text:
User talk:Tommyv7326

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on your user page
Hi! Was just looking at your user page. Love what you say about collaboration and open source. I had a couple of small thoughts, and figured I'd share them.
 * The project name is typeset as, rather than  . :-)
 * I get what you're saying about instant gratification and Wikipedia. More than just the fact that Wikipedia by policy instantly "publishes" edits.  Wikinews also has a significant initial learning curve, and even once you know what you're doing, publication takes some time because you have to wait for review (and worse, sometimes it doesn't happen in time, frustrating everyone).  On the other hand,
 * it's been remarked that writing an article here is technically much simpler than writing an article on Wikipedia; this was from someone with a lot of experience with meeting Wikipedia's Good Article and Featured Article criteria. It's also been remarked our publication criteria are roughly comparable to Wikipedia's GA criteria. Imagine trying to achieve GA status on Wikipedia within a few hours of creating the article, and it's clear why our criteria have to be streamlined. Also,
 * contributions to Wikinews, once made, stay put. Any contribution to Wikipedia is instantly visible but then has a ; if it isn't instantly reverted, it is slowly washed out by successive alterations, and that too can be frustrating.  Since a news article is a snapshot in time, it is protected under our archive policy, so contributions here accumulate rather than slowly disappearing.

--Pi zero (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tommyv7326


text:
User:Tommyv7326

Open Source Rules!

Disclaimer: Wikinews involves much more scrutiny to get work published. If you want practice, Wikipedia is much more instantly gratifying in the publishing department. However, if you want your contribution to last, brave the Wikinews waters. ==== Hello, I'm Tommy, and I'm new here. Contrary to how it sounds I don't have any personal rules about Wikinews. I just think information collaboration is awesome! The main reason why I started this account is to contribute to another open source project. I feel like closed source technology is great for security and new users, but open source stuff is what really drives the world. It is always has the best finger on the pulse of what's new or what should be new in technology. Although Google is probably my favorite open sourced company, giving Wikinews a try is a fun way to brush up on my writing skills. If you've stumbled upon this page, I wish you peace and prosperity in editing Wikinews, and overcoming reviews via the easily followed processes. ====

title: User:Tommyv7326


text:
User:Cassiopeia

CASSIOPEIA

title: User:Cassiopeia


text:
User talk:Rnelsonf

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rnelsonf


text:
User talk:JacksonMungai

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:JacksonMungai


text:
User talk:LauralauraS

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:LauralauraS


text:
User talk:DarylWasson0

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:DarylWasson0


text:
User talk:LBNBetsey2

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:LBNBetsey2


text:
User talk:Mingoo.

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mingoo.


text:
User talk:Emmanuelcobbinah

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Emmanuelcobbinah


text:
User talk:LocalAFL

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:LocalAFL


text:
User talk:Qwenjun

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Qwenjun


text:
User talk:Presidentelect00

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Presidentelect00


text:
User talk:Guernsey Yeti

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Guernsey Yeti


text:
User talk:Nickynickyn

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nickynickyn


text:
User talk:Benjaminjohnpeters

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Benjaminjohnpeters


text:
User talk:Kendewalt13579

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kendewalt13579


text:
User talk:Oakpark13579

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oakpark13579


text:
User talk:Elldoge

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elldoge


text:
User talk:Kiuhg

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kiuhg


text:
User talk:Soufiyan fatima

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Soufiyan fatima


text:
User talk:Chrismumia

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chrismumia


text:
User talk:KillersAspect

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:KillersAspect


text:
User talk:Rapifly

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rapifly


text:
User talk:Annatank

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Annatank


text:
User talk:Hamza ferradji

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hamza ferradji


text:
User:Annatank

Yes.

title: User:Annatank


text:
User talk:Domingos Mato

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Domingos Mato


text:
User talk:BeboAhmedEGY

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:BeboAhmedEGY


text:
User talk:Patilmachindar

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Patilmachindar


text:
User talk:Alisson Andrade

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alisson Andrade


text:
User talk:Danishauswart

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

--Pi zero (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Danishauswart


text:
User talk:Rocco59

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rocco59


text:
User talk:Vatsal Srivastav

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vatsal Srivastav


text:
User talk:David Prince

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:David Prince


text:
Real Madrid defends Champions League title

June 6, 2017

After last year's victory against crosstown rivals Atlético Madrid at in Milan, Spanish capital football club Real Madrid defeated Italian giants Juventus FC 4–1 in the UEFA Champions League final in Cardiff, Wales on Saturday.

Cristiano Ronaldo scored the first goal of the match from Dani Carvajal's pass in the 20th minute becoming the first player to score in three Champions League finals. This marked the 500th goal in the European Championship for Real Madrid. Not much later, Mario Mandžukić scored a goal from an overhead kick in the 27th minute from former Real Madrid forward Gonzalo Higuaín. Three players were booked in the first half — Juve's, Real Madrid's captain Sergio Ramos and Dani Carvajal as the first half ended 1–1.

Just after the one hour mark, Casemiro made it 2–1 as his right footed shot deflecting off found the net, and three minutes later, Ronaldo netted his 600th career goal from Luka Modrić's cross from just six yards in front of the goal. , who was substituted after the scoreline was 1–3, was booked twice in the span of eleven minutes, in the 72nd and 83rd minutes, making the situation harder for trailing Juventus. The ten-men Juve had seven minutes plus injury time to minimise the damage. But, a 90th minute goal by Marco Asensio ensured the game ended without going into extra time like last year's final. Asensio was shown a yellow card for his celebration.

Real Madrid, under Zinedine Zidane, secured their twelfth European title; their sixth Champions League trophy after the tournament's rebranding, becoming the first club to win consecutive Champions League titles. They also won the La Liga title this season. Juve's goalkeeper, Gianluigi Buffon, missed out on what would have been his first Champions League title. Juventus missed their second chance to win a, previously denied by FC Barcelona two years ago.

Ronaldo is to face his former club Manchester United and his former manager at Real Madrid in 2012, José Mourinho in the in Macedonia, scheduled for August 8. Ronaldo has now won four Champions League titles — three with Los Blancos and one with Manchester — and finished as the Champions League top scorer netting twelve goals this season ahead of Lionel Messi. For the last four years, Spanish clubs have won four European Championship in a row, Real Madrid and Barcelona, more than any other European country.


text:
User talk:JFSBB5217

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:JFSBB5217


text:
User talk:Zebathun

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zebathun


text:
User talk:Heysusetakemetotacobell

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Heysusetakemetotacobell


text:
User talk:AmyRidley9

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:AmyRidley9


text:
User talk:Mdevries1971

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mdevries1971


text:
User talk:68.185.48.254

money
from what I have seen so far. money is really steady. the cost between coin and parchment is really good. there are a few issues that explain this is several of the major blogs as well as chats that are popular. you can check these out if you have the time. I have and have really put some thought into the matters of other issues.

title: User talk:68.185.48.254


text:
User talk:Wlara123

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wlara123


text:
Talk:Real Madrid defends Champions League title

Review of revision 4320580 [Passed]

 * Things were in my memory, and I thought it might be in the reviewer's memory. My bad. acagastya 11:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


text: Comments:Real Madrid defends Champions League title


text:
User talk:DEXi

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:DEXi


text:
User talk:Happipingu

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Happipingu


text:
User talk:Richard Hill Jr

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Richard Hill Jr


text: Category:Coldplay

title: Category:Coldplay


text:
User talk:Hameltion

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Frankfurt defuses World War II-era bomb, evacuates 60,000
Published; congrats! --Pi zero (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

'Sunken city' discovered off Tunisian coast
Reviewed. Please check the article talk page for comments. --Gryllida (talk, chat) 04:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hameltion


text:
User talk:灌溉生活

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:灌溉生活


text:
User talk:Sigalina

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sigalina


text:
User talk:AdiRams12

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:AdiRams12


text:
User talk:Srikanta696969

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Srikanta696969


text:
User talk:Thomas912

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thomas912


text:
Astronomers reveal discovery of the hottest gas giant exoplanet known yet

June 8, 2017 On Monday, astronomers at the Ohio State University,, revealed the discovery of an exoplanet, named and according to the university's astronomy professor Scott Gaudi, it is "the hottest gas giant planet that has ever been discovered". The discovery was reported online in the  journal.

The astronomers say the planet's surface temperature is more than 4000° (7232°), nearly as hot as the Sun. The planet takes about 36 to 48 hours to orbit around its star, KELT-9. KELT-9 is about two and a half times larger than the Sun and nearly twice its temperature. The star is about 650 from the earth, but it is about 300 million years old. KELT-9 is a blue, which shines brightly but, unlike some other stars such as our own Sun, their life span is on the order of millions rather than billions of years.

About a year ago, NASA reports, at the in Arizona, observers using the KELT-North telescope noticed a minute drop in KELT-9's brightness — about 0.5%. This pattern was observed once every one and a half days, implying the planet comes in between the line of sight of the star from Earth, meaning the planet completes one revolution in that time period. Observations using the Hubble telescope could reveal whether the planet possesses a comet-like tail, which could help the astronomers estimate how long the planet may live.

Professor Gaudi told the BBC the planet KELT-9b "is about three times the mass of Jupiter and twice as big as Jupiter." He said the team discovered the planet in 2014. He added, "it took us this long to finally convince ourselves that this truly bizarre and unusual world was in fact a planet orbiting another star".

Much like the Moon is to the Earth, KELT-9b is to its star; with one side of the planet always exposed to its star. Due to tidal locking, the planet's surface temperature facing the star is roughly 4300°C (7772°F), more than the surface temperature of an average Red Dwarf star. Its close proximity to its parent star exposes it to ultraviolet radiation, and according to the calculations, the planet loses planetary material anywhere between ten billion to ten trillion grams each second. Professor Gaudi said, "It's a planet by any of the typical definitions of mass, but its atmosphere is almost certainly unlike any other planet we've ever seen just because of the temperature of its dayside".

According to Keivan Stassun, a professor of physics and astronomy at, Tennessee, "KELT-9 will swell to become a red giant star in a few hundred million years". Professor Stassun directed the study with Gaudi. The discovery was a collaboration between Ohio State University, Vanderbilt University,, and the. They operate a dual-location system, one location in each hemisphere, called the. Professor Gaudi told the BBC that it was named "as a joke".


text:
User talk:Jack 2001

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jack 2001


text:
User talk:Ceegreen

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ceegreen


text:
User talk:Rbarryrbarry

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rbarryrbarry


text:
User talk:DewittEanes

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:DewittEanes


text:
User talk:KassandraK52

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:KassandraK52


text:
User talk:Xrorkes

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xrorkes


text:
User talk:Padma Sri Gummadi

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Padma Sri Gummadi


text:
User talk:TrudiTietjen9

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:TrudiTietjen9


text:
User talk:Partha Pritam Dash

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Partha Pritam Dash


text:
User talk:CJ StorylineGroup

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:CJ StorylineGroup


text:
User talk:HowardFournier3

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:HowardFournier3


text:
User:LittleBigToh

See https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:LittleBigToh

title: User:LittleBigToh


text:
User talk:Colemancs

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Colemancs


text:
User talk:Wakabia

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wakabia


text:
User talk:Clarionmixorg

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 11:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Clarionmixorg


text:
User talk:Onlinenathan

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Onlinenathan


text:
User talk:Mstansbury

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mstansbury


text:
User talk:Nils Wach (WMDE)

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nils Wach (WMDE)


text:
Category:User gsw-N

Users in this category indicate they have skill level N for language Swiss German.

title: Category:User gsw-N


text:
User talk:Abhigith

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abhigith


text:
User talk:Walter John

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Local uploads
You uploaded several media files, in apparent violation of local policy. As a precaution I have blocked your account, pending an explanation. You may explain on this page. --Pi zero (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Walter John


text:
User talk:MineralDiamond

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:MineralDiamond


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/technical/archives/2017/May

Beta Feature Two Column Edit Conflict View
From May 9, the Two Column Edit Conflict View will be available as a beta feature on all wikis. The Two Column Edit Conflict View is a new interface for the edit conflict resolution page. It highlights differences between the editor's and the conflicting changes to make it easy to copy and paste pieces of the text and resolve the conflict. The feature fulfils a request for a more user-friendly edit conflict resolution from the German Community’s Technical Wishlist. Everyone is invited to test the feature and we hope that it will serve you well! Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

 Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "". In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history. You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes

 * A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools.  Go to Special:Preferences to enable the.
 * A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs.  More features will be added to this later.  In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components.
 * The team have added multi-column support for lists of footnotes. The  block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens.  This makes footnotes easier to read.  You can request multi-column support for your wiki.
 * You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this.
 * The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow.
 * The item has been moved to the top of the  menu (from clicking on the "hamburger" icon) for quicker access.  There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there.
 * You can now create   tags (sometimes used as  ) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor.
 * Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed.
 * The menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) .  The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt.
 * A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed.  The team are sorry for the disruption.
 * There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations:  + +  on a PC, or  + +  on a Mac.  It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is  +  or  +  respectively.

Future changes

 * The team is working on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of   tags and other types of wikitext syntax.  You will be able to turn it on and off.  It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017.
 * The kind of button used to, , and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI.  The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read.  The labels will remain the same.  You can test the new button by editing a page and adding   to the end of the URL, like this:  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1  The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes.
 * The outdated 2006 wikitext editor will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors.  See a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org if you are uncertain which one you use.
 * If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready.

—Elitre (WMF) 18:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RevisionSlider
RevisionSlider will be available as a default feature for all users on all wikis from May 17. The RevisionSlider adds a slider view to the diff page so that you can easily move between revisions. The slider view is collapsed by default, and will load by clicking on it. It can also be turned off entirely in the user preferences. RevisionSlider has been a default feature on German, Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia for 6 months and a beta feature on all wikis for 8 months. The feature fulfills a wish from the German Community’s Technical Wishlist. Thanks to everyone who tested RevisionSlider and gave valuable feedback to improve the feature! We hope that RevisionSlider will continue to serve you well in your work. Birgit Müller (WMDE) 14:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


text:
User talk:ThePagesWriter

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:ThePagesWriter


text:
User talk:James Budday (WMDE)

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:James Budday (WMDE)


text:
User talk:John Armstead

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:John Armstead


text:
User talk:Tyler Durden

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tyler Durden


text:
User talk:Pulok Sarker

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pulok Sarker


text:
User talk:AsbuSang

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:AsbuSang


text:
User talk:Jpcomic

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jpcomic


text:
User talk:Rommel J. Guzman

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rommel J. Guzman


text:
User talk:MPachulski

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:MPachulski


text:
User talk:Ozymandias1234567890

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ozymandias1234567890


text:
User talk:Hemiauchenia

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hemiauchenia


text:
User talk:Tomazulo

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tomazulo


text:
User talk:Thelman

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thelman