text:
Talk:Lebanon child abduction charges against mother may be dropped in exchange for custody

Changes made but 'freshness' debatable
Hi - I've made the suggested changes to referencing and included a time of event in the lede as asked.

I think the question of freshness, however is debatable. I submitted the story less than 24 hours after the event....And there appears to be no other Wikinews stories published on the topic. I believe the current information needs publishing before the continuation of legal proceedings on Monday so that readers know where everything stands currently.

cheers, Liv —The preceding comment was added at 23:56, 15 April 2016
 * Freshness is about the state of the article when published, not when written. We're not grading articles on how well written they are, we're assessing articles for possible publication to a global audience (we're carried by the google news aggregator as a news site, not as a blog); the output is what we must care about.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Completely understand - There must be a million and 1 articles constantly being considered, so it'd be hard to review them all quickly enough. I still do think that this background is necessary though, as no other info on the subject is on the site - perhaps with a shorter update article after the defense hearing on Monday.
 * Liv.
 * There's no reason a later article can't include all of this background (if, that is, it's verifiable and "in your own words" — I haven't actually checked those things yet). Inverted pyramid structure is flexible enough for such things. I'm worried, looking forward at another review of this, because just in the last hour or so I've noticed that one of these sources is paywalled (The Australian).  We don't allow pay-to-read sources; unfortunately all, or at least most, articles in The Australian are paywalled, as are those in The New York Times and at least many of those in The Wall Street Journal.  Best to avoid all three of those.  (I look forward to the day when we have a semi-automated reviewing assistant to check some of these simple things earlier; it sure would have been nice to know about the paywall problem on the 14th.)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Ah, that's annoying about the Australian. I used a few of the news-sources to corroborate each other, so if this version isn't published, and I submit an article on Monday including the defense of the plaintiffs as the main lede, I can leave it out and look for new sources.

Should I remove it now? Also, just FYI: I just added to this version a current piece of info about charges potentially being dropped if Faulkner gives up custody and "never" takes the children back to Australia. It doesn't definitively mean changes for the 60 Minutes crew, but may have some affect. Thanks, Liv
 * The pay-to-read source has to be removed; there's no point holding off removing it. If there is any text that depends on it, please do remove that text at the same time (or find another source for it). When was the new offer made?  If verifiably recent it could help with freshness.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The offer was made today. I've structured it into my lede now.

Have also removed the Australian reference and used another source for the new info.... Hope to hear from you soon!
 * I was also wondering if I should change the title to incorporate the new aspect to the story? I'm not sure how to do that.....
 * Another development that I've added to the story: Faulkner's lawyer has said that she DID use money provided by 60 Minutes to fund the abduction operation....60 Minutes original intention for the money remains unidentified. This is also today's news.
 * Also, I've been trying to add inter-wiki links and failed miserably...None of the pages I try to link to exist...It's my first attempt at writing for wiki and I can't seem to get all the codes right. just so you know...
 * Yes, the headline should address the same focal event as the lede does. Changing the lede = renaming the article; there should be a control bar at the top of your browser window, and way over on the right side of that should be a dropdown menu, with moving/renaming the article as probably the only thing on it. On cursory inspection it looks as if the wikilinks are under control now. Btw, when you leave a comment here, end it with two dashes and then four tildes, " "; the wiki software automatically expands that to a signature with wikilinks and UTC date.  (Well, it expands the four tildes to the sig; the two dashes are just window dressing.)  --Pi zero (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, figured out the links and the headline. Hope it's looking closer to publish now...Any other suggestions? hope this is right...--Liv UOW (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks as if the next move is mine (or some other reviewer's, but atm probably mine). A full review is called for.  I'm hoping I can do that a little later this morning (it's about 9am where I am).  --Pi zero (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Review in progress
For some strange reason, the SBS site isn't responding at all for me. Strange. I remember having no trouble with it earlier when I determined it was syndicated from AAP. Just gonna have to work around it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now working.
 * Btw, for future reference, keep in mind that while using more sources to increase article quality is great, using more sources should be done with deliberation since it greatly increases difficulty of review — the reviewer has to read all the sources, and process them in various other ways as well. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the sources are linking to the information I researched now...weird. I'll keep in mind the issue with sources. Thanks. As a uni student, we're basically told to cite as many sources as possible, so I'm in the habit I suppose. For a 300-500 word piece, is 4 or 5 sources more appropriate? --Liv UOW (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

 * It depends on the piece, of course; I wouldn't care to put a specific ratio of word-to-source count. William Saturn, who does very cool political pieces like this, has developed a habit of embedding html comments to indicate which of the many synthesis sources is used for which fact (a style he developed in the last US presidential election cycle, as a matter of survival:  he did big monthly articles with lots of synthesis and some original reporting, and they really would have been overwhelming to review without that help — thus). Congrats on publication, btw! :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at that. On other platforms, I've always linked in-text to direct sources, but I read that wiki doesn't do that. Had a bit of a hard time getting my head around it but I think I know where to go from here now. And thanks for your help. --180.181.102.139 --Liv UOW (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Some issue?
This article is on the top of latest news on the main page while the Olympics news was published later. Why so? 14.139.242.195 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


text:
User talk:RUJAY

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:RUJAY


text:
User:AlvaroMolina/huggle3.css

// This is a configuration of huggle, do not change it unless you know what you do. enable:true // Last version of huggle that wrote into this configuration file (sanity check) version:3.1.22 build: 2938 3.1.22

speedy-message-title:Speedy deleted report-summary:Reporting $1 prod-message-summary:Notification: Proposed deletion of $1 auto-advance:false auto-whitelist:true username-listed:true admin:true patrol-speedy:true confirm-multiple:false confirm-talk:true confirm-self-revert:true confirm-whitelist:true default-summary:Reverted edits by $1 (talk) to last revision by $2 // This option will change the behaviour of automatic resolution, be carefull revert-auto-multiple-edits:false automatically-resolve-conflicts:false software-rollback:false HistoryLoad:true OnNext:1 DeleteEditsAfterRevert:true SkipToLastEdit:false PreferredProvider:2 RemoveOldestQueueEdits:false TruncateEdits:false TalkpageFreshness:20 RemoveAfterTrustedEdit:true // Get original creator of every page so that you can G7 instead of reverting the page RetrieveFounder:false DisplayTitle:false // Periodically check if you received new messages and display a notification box if you get them CheckTP:false ManualWarning:false SummaryMode:0 AutomaticReports:false // HAN HAN_Html:false HAN_DisplayUserTalk:true HAN_DisplayBots:true HAN_DisplayUser:true Watchlist:watch // Whether edits made by same user should be grouped up together in page AutomaticallyGroup:false QueueID:default // queues queues:

title: User:AlvaroMolina/huggle3.css


text:
User talk:إلياس الجزائري

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:إلياس الجزائري


text:
User:178.162.45.2

Приветствую! В своем первом посте хочу поделиться с вами подборкой моих избранных цитат: [i]Излишняя торопливость, точно так же как и медлительность, ведет к печальному концу. Человек трусливый, потерявший всякий стыд, может согласиться на всякую гадость. Сдержанность и уместность в разговорах стоят больше красноречия. Великая общая ненависть создает крепкую дружбу. Душа человека развивается до самой смерти. Нет более быстрого пути к овладению знаниями, чем искренняя любовь к мудрому учителю. [/i] Прекрасные мысли. А вы как считаете?

title: User:178.162.45.2


text:
User talk:Andre Baiangela Andre

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andre Baiangela Andre


text:
North Korean ballistic missile fails at launch

April 17, 2016

In the early morning on Friday, tried unsuccessfully to launch a ballistic missile, BM-25, according to reports. An anonymous defense official placed the attempt at 5:03 local time (2033 on Thursday ).

According to South Korean news agency, the missile's range is 3,000 to 4,000 (about 1850 to 2500 ), enough to reach the  base on the island of.

A statement from the said "North Korea appears to have tried to shoot, this morning, a missile from the area of the East Sea, but it is presumed that the launch failed." According to Yonhap, North Korea did not notify the of the launch.

Friday was the 104th birthday of the founder of North Korea and grandfather of present leader, , which is celebrated with military parades and events.


text:
User talk:Varshanie david

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Varshanie david


text:
User talk:Meandyou2110

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Meandyou2110


text:
User talk:KennithCrockett

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:KennithCrockett


text:
User talk:SOLOMON TESFAYE

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:SOLOMON TESFAYE


text:
User talk:Dhirendra Kalauni

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dhirendra Kalauni


text:
User talk:Pi zero/Archive 11

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

Jimbo
Why did you delete my article? --Joskinfieds (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This project is for publishing neutral accurate news. --Pi zero (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

hello about my new news piece.
hi pi zero could you please help me when you get a chance and take a look at my short news article. thanks. i know your busy. --Fdena (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

i know your very busy with other matters but could you do anything to the article page to help it possibly grow? --Fdena (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

My Article
Hello, I saw your comment on my article, so I was wondering, what should I edit to get it approved? Or is it not worth my time seeing how it technically not "fresh" as it was published a week ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tardis218 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 10 November 2015
 * Hi Tardis218. You'd need to refocus the article on a fresh event (perhaps the swearing-in, but even that is now two calendar days old) and find at least one source bearing witness that the event actually happened as had been anticipated, preferably two to better demonstrate relevance.  Refocusing an article tends to be a difficult operation, even without the sourcing and relevance difficulties; a sufficiently experienced Wikinewsie might make it work, but since you're just learning the ropes, it may be better to look for another story that's just happened to write about.  (When I set out to write my first article, iirc it took me some time before I found a story I really wanted to share — after which I then had to keep checking up on it for several hours before a second, independent source became available.)  --Pi zero (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Heh, even now I couldn't find anything on if the meeting at the City Hall went as expected. And now thinking about it, I might not even write for Wikinews at all seeing how I'm untalented with writing anyhow, let alone write a semi-professional news article :P Ah well, thanks for the help. Tardis218 (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, obviously I can't make that decision for you, but in favor of news writing I'll point out that it's a good way to learn to be a better writer; it's a very forthright form, and teaches you to get straight to the point. We had a newcomer earlier this year who took to embedding html comments   in their lede every few words to note which of the five Ws and H they'd just answered. :-) Yeah, I suspected there wouldn't be any coverage of the swearing-in. Btw, that first article I wrote?  I think I hunted around on news services for a day or so, seeing various things go by and just not finding anything that excited me, and then I hit on a story that I just fell in love with instantly, and knew I'd found what I was looking for.  The result:
 * (Would have been even better if I'd thought at the time to slap on a file photo from Commons of a riding mower.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (Would have been even better if I'd thought at the time to slap on a file photo from Commons of a riding mower.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha, that story is amazing. I'll have to look out for news stories in my area then, see if I find anything of interest to write about. :P Tardis218 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent Changes
Currently, the page looks like: Is thas vandalism? Or how can someone create an account for someone else? (Indirect sock puppetry?) 14.139.242.195 (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (User creation log); 10:32 . . User account Suraj Kumar Patel15 (Talk | contribs) was created by Anand v21 (Talk | contribs)
 * (User creation log); 10:31 . . User account Abhishek Pargaie (Talk | contribs) was created by Anand v21 (Talk | contribs)
 * (User creation log); 10:29 . . User account Ganesh S Bhatt (Talk | contribs) was created by Anand v21 (Talk | contribs)
 * (User creation log); 10:28 . . User account 3-m-c 2pola (Talk | contribs) was created
 * (User creation log); 10:27 . . User account Sumanth Pradhan15 (Talk | contribs) was created by Anand v21 (Talk | contribs)
 * (User creation log); 08:13 . . User account Nani5953 (Talk | contribs) was created
 * When an admin blocks an account, there are a bunch of options they can turn on or off, to fine-tune just what the block does and doesn't prevent. One of those is "prevent account creation" (see here).  I guess this means that, while logged in, the user exercises the create-an-account facility.  This information is recorded in the account creation log, e.g. .  As for what is going on with that particular set of account creations, I truly don't know, but it isn't necessarily something nefarious.  For example, perhaps it's a teacher creating accounts for some students.  It could be something that ought not be happening, but I see nothing about the account that would particularly suggest a problem.  They've apparently made no edits on any Wikinews (let alone English Wikinews).  I see Anand v21 has a user page on Sanskrit Wikiquote and Wiktionary; identical afaict; q:sa:सदस्यः:Anand v21, wikt:sa:सदस्यः:Anand v21; though I've really no idea what they say.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Form to fill template parameters?
Was curious if we can have something like a form that would take input for parameters of a particular template, (something similar to Pi zero/dialog/demo)? Or do I need to use a language other than Wiki Markup? 14.139.242.195 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're looking for. Something customized to a particular template, or for an arbitrary template?  Something that shows what the template would look like with particular parameters, or something that helps put those parameters into a template on an actual page?  --Pi zero (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the incomplete information, but if you see my talk page, I have a section Template:Football article which is the template for which I require the form. A static form is there in the next section. Instead of copying the static form, I wish to have a form in which we have text boxes (to avoid copying of the template). Moreover, after filling the parameters, the template is to be substituted. It is just an intermediate step to help writing faster. And till now, I have planned it only as my subpage. 14.139.242.195 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Without writing something to use the dialog tools (akin to the demo, but I suppose one could add on a facility for applying the results somewhere), one can copy a pattern to somewhere and fill it in — we've got a pattern set up in the documentation for topic cat just so it can be copy-and-pasted. Such a thing could be copied into an article directly, copied onto a scratchpad, or used in Special:ExpandTemplates.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Trump OR
Having pulled the JSON data, and spotted an MP near the top, I decided to actually check that - so just put in a little late OR on the article. There's a lot of them. :D --Brian McNeil / talk 21:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, (off topic): Did anyone notice that headlines starts with 'U' in the last 6 out of 10 published articles! Plus, there are 2 waiting in the queue. We aren't maintaining a NPOV for the other letters :P 14.139.242.195 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, but there's a difference between NPOV on Wikinews vs Wikipedia. We should be okay as long as we don't mislead our readers into thinking most news starts with "U", whereas Wikipedian neutrality calls, as I recall, for "balance".  That probably means the proportion of articles starting with "U" should be the same as the proportion of English words starting with "U"; alternatively, perhaps they'd hold a protracted debate on the question. :-P  --Pi zero (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Protracted debate? Heh. They'd write a few million words on the topic, complete with statistical analyses of data dumps. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The article is proving incredibly popular on Facebook. Up less than 3 hours, and over 10K views, 170+ likes, and 35 shares. A lot of articles are lucky to get half that in a full 24 hours. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is 59 shares now! 14.139.242.195 (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Query
Hi, do you have a form of speedy deletion on here? Only, The Death of Kim Kardashian appears to be a blatant hoax. Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WN:CSD is what you are looking for? Plus, further reading, you can peep in at delete for usage of the template. And of course Criteria for speedy deletion. 14.139.242.195 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 01:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Category rename suggestion
Category:Champions League ought to be Category:UEFA Champions League, as per Category:2008-09 UEFA Champions League season and Category:UEFA Champions League Match Reports (which looks as though it has too many capital letters, and is probably incomplete, but there we go...). Where does one propose a category rename around here? Bencherlite (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't anticipate any serious objections, and category renames are better done sooner than later since the amount of work increases with use. Done.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Did template work?
Did it help in checking the details? Did it take less time, or it was no good? Should we think about it or discard the thoughts? 117.212.219.27 (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Afaict, it didn't really impact the review, one way or another. --Pi zero (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(Wikinews) hawkip
OK thanks for the comment, I would have saw the article and be quite confused. Anyway, I'm going to work on some articles offline for a bit, following by that link, I'll have to submit regularly, I think once every couple of days. But yeah, I think I'll get there. Also, I'm not quite sure what part of my article was copyright, so I would like to know that please for future reference.

Yours indubitably.Loomhigh223555 (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

N Korea
Is there a way we can get this news article going? It's big news. thank you. --WagonsofTruth (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The only way publishing the article is first complete the story maintaining the WN:Style guide by at least writing the article for a minimal WN:LENGTH. Well, it is all over the internet. 14.139.242.195 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Articles tend to get written by one person, in practice.  Then they get reviewed by someone independent of authorship of the article; that's the first pillar at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing. There's a good tutorial on writing an article at WN:Writing an article.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'am just afraid the article may go stale. --WagonsofTruth (talk) 15:01, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That can happen, yes. It's quite common for folks to first come to Wikinews when they've got something they really want covered, only to discover that contributing to Wikinews has an initial learning curve (and, even worse, that sort of story is likely to be "breaking", i.e., changing rapidly, which is the most difficult sort of thing to handle as synthesis using Wikinews's workflow model).  A reporter's first Wikinews article is a major learning experience, and it's not at all uncommon that the first article itself never does reach publication — though once a reporter learns the basics of how to write Wikinews articles it can (for many people, anyway) get quite easy.  One veteran Wikinewsie has recommended 'don't marry the article' — try to make an article work, but if it doesn't be prepared to move on to another.  Only that doesn't sit well when the reporter came here in the first place exactly because they have a story they really want to cover!  --Pi zero (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Lachmann
Dear Pi zero. I currently work on the article about American sociologist Richard Lachmann in Russian Wiki. It has detailed analyse of his works but lack bio information. So I am going to interview him for WikiNews. I prepared questions (here), but my English very far from free level. Could you check my mistakes and correct them? Interview will be translated in Russian for Russian WikiNews and maybe can be used for English WikiNews as well. Hope for your understanding. Best regards. --Алый Король (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I'll try to help. I can offer three kinds of feedback for you atm. First, I've done some basic proofreading of the linked page of questions.  I tried not to change the meaning, but you should look over what I did carefully.  I wasn't absolutely certain what you intended to mean in some places.  I also tried to leave your style of wording unchanged; there are some passages that sound a little awkward to a native English speaker, but they are perfectly understandable so I left them alone. Second, I wondered just a bit about neutrality a little, here and there.  It's important that en.wn doesn't advocate a position on any particular issue.  I didn't change things for neutrality, when editing the page, but I wondered a little on one or two questions.  I did make one change, on the last bit about Wikipedia:  we publish things as news, not for the sake of Wikipedia.  In fact, English Wikipedia has always refused to admit that English Wikinews is a reliable source of information; so we concentrate on being a reliable news source, and let Wikipedia worry about its own policies.  I trimmed your words a little on that item; it's just a suggestion. If we're trying for a publication of original reporting on English Wikinews, we'll need good documentation.
 * Prepare before an interview to record it well so you'll have plenty of documentation.
 * The article itself needs reporter's notes on the article talk page, explaining when and how the interview was done, including how it was documented.
 * If there were emails involved, they should all be forwarded to scoop (that's "scoop at wikinewsie dot org"). Anything that contains private information, so that it should not be posted on the public wiki, should also be emailed to scoop.  If you are sending things to scoop, also mention, in your reporter's notes on the article talk page, that you are doing so.
 * We need something to check the interview against. Whatever means you use to record the interview (including email, as just mentioned), we need to see the original so we can check the article against it.  For example, whatever form the article is recorded in, there is usually some cleaning up that goes on for the published article; we should be able to check that we agree with how that was done.
 * An interview article has an introduction that gives some explanation of who the interviewee is and, at least, says that they 'agreed to answer some questions for Wikinews' or some such words. Any background facts stated there need to be verified during review for publication; so you should provide source citations in a Sources section at the bottom of the article to verify all background information, just as we would for a synthesis article.
 * The goal of all this is that everything in the article can be verified from the documentation provided. We don't claim that everything they said is true, but we do need documentation that they said what we report they said.  When we say something is true, we need documentation that it is true.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's amazing. Thank you very much. The interview will be conducted via email, so I should send CC to scoop at wikinewsie (is it misprint? wikinews?) dot org? --Алый Король (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * yes. scoop at wikinewsie dot org.  (We set up the wikinewsie dot org domain, years ago, to host a number of things we needed for our original reporting, when the WMF made it clear they were not willing to have those things done under their auspices.)  --Pi zero (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Got it, thank you very much. I will forward my letter to scoop and will ask him to make the same. 	I really appreciate all the help you've given me. --Алый Король (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I sent copy to scoop (the first delivery failed, the second seems to be OK). Could you check it or you don't have access? --Алый Король (talk) 05:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

 * I received three emails from you through the scoop mailing list; the first and third had the questions attachment, the second was just a test. Sometimes people who send to scoop get "failure" messages, not because the message didn't get to scoop, but because a few people with wikinewsie email accounts haven't cleaned out their mailboxes, so that their mailboxes overflow and the message can't be delivered to them. One concern.  There's a note at page Original reporting,
 * [...] you must introduce yourself as an independent or freelance reporter. You may, of course, inform the source where you hope to publish, but please ensure they understand in this case that your own views and activities are not representative of anyone else who uses Wikinews, nor does the reputation of Wikinews, or lack of reputation of Wikinews, reflect on yourself.
 * Don't give the interviewee the impression that the interview is guaranteed to be published on English Wikinews. Our review process (see first pillar at WN:PILLARS) wouldn't really have teeth if publication could be guaranteed ahead of time; and if somehow an interview didn't get published after the interviewee thought that had been promised, it could create bad feelings.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I can guarantee that it will be published in Russian WikiNews. Anyway, it's not that kind of interview that was taken without purpose. It has obvious purpose: completing GA for Wiki, so I don't see any reason why it could be refused. Anyway, I got it, thanks for explaining. Next time I will pay more attention on this. If everithing are good and I success with interview, I will try to do the same for two other scholars. --Алый Король (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to review
See Detroit teachers stage sickout to protest working conditions as Obama visits Thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Miami doctor publicly apologizes for Uber misconduct
I've tried to beat this into shape, but feel I've taken enough involvement to disqualify me from review. You'll see that when you look at RC. ;) --Brian McNeil / talk 23:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My natural instinct was to object to using an exclusive interview by another news org as the focus, but I didn't act on the impulse because I saw you were editing it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comprises a pretty small part of the overall article. Additionally, having just re-checked the ABC source they don't refer to their interview as "exclusive"; they might in the video footage, but not in the written report which I worked from. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * At this moment, I'm definitely not up to review-weight decisions. (Strange to realize how much less capacity I have now for late-night reviewing than just a few years ago. :-S )  --Pi zero (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For review
Hi Pi Zero, I hope you find the time to make a review of my news here. Thanks in advance.--FCastroACE (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan: Suicide bomber on a motorbike kills eight and injures 20
All the info i can really find for now so i submitted it for review sorry if its not much. --Widemanowlz (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Jamie-Lynn Sigler discussing having MS review
Thank you for accurately and justly reviewing my article on Jamie-Lynn Sigler. I heard the news on Friday, February 5, 2016, but after doing shrewd research online I found out that she revealed having the disease in January 2016. When I heard of the news, I could not help but feel sorry for her. And after doing research, I also found out that people who have MS typically get it at 34, so I felt additionally sorry.

I partially agree with your comments. You said that a number of passages are copied from the source(s) that I had and I copied nothing except the quotes from the article. I would never intentionally plagiarize someone's material.

Secondly, you said the headline would have better been focused explicitly on the announcement and in the opening paragraph it says "Nine years after filming the last scene of the The Sopranos, 34-year old Jamie-Lynn Sigler reveals her diagnosis with Multiple Sclerosis (MS)."

However, I agree that it was old and no longer fresh (so I will not be submitting it for another review. Also, it was very short, most paragraphs were three sentences but I did not have much time to read both articles. Maybe, I'll have more time next time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eurocus47 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 February 2016

 * It's not about intent. I compared your article with the source articles, looking for actual similarities.  There's some advice on avoiding such similarities at pillar WN:PILLARS (the advice is very compact; everything on that page is very compact; but the advice is there).  Wikinews has to be vigorous about the issue of copyright, because commercial news orgs are vigorous about it (as page WN:Plagiarism notes). The headline is the name of the page; the lede is the first paragraph of the article. It's a sad story, yes.  I understand your wanting to cover it.  Naturally, on an all-volunteer news project a story doesn't get covered unless there's a volunteer writer who wants to cover it. I do recommend WN:PILLARS and WN:WRITE as useful guidance for aspiring Wikinews writers. :-)  Wikinews writing gets easier once you get past our initial learning curve, and we try to help folks up it.  Feel free to ask questions.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Umberto Eco obituary
Hope it is better now. Please, check my english because I still don't have great confidence when I work with it. Thank you and have a good work.--Michele Gardini (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ty for help, now is really good, nice work. Bye.--Michele Gardini (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Missing infos was on NYT and on italian news, and I don't think you can use it here. A pity. Ty again and see you.--Michele Gardini (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Checking on what I did wrong trying to create new Wiki page for person
I tried this afternoon to create a new page for a writer I follow, trisha posner. but after creating it and listing references I it was deleted. sorry, I am not sure what I did wrong. one reference link was to a wiki news article about her. and message for deleting said wikinews is not Wikipedia, I believe, don't have the message in front of me right now. I only have information from public sources about trisha posner so was trying to build new page from that. thanks for any advice to try and correct or submit different? dutchbytes —The preceding comment was added by Dutchbytes33 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 February 2016
 * Hi, Dutchbytes33.
 * This is Wikinews, where we publish articles about events that have just happened. Your article about a person is encyclopedic, so it belongs on Wikipedia, over there.  (I think they have a (non-interactive) article wizard for newcomers interested in creating a new article.)
 * If you don't have the text of the page, I can undelete it temporarily so you can access it, no problem.
 * If a news story about her comes up, you're welcome to try your hand at writing a Wikinews article about that. I'd recommend looking first at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing, which is a compact overview of what we do at Wikinews, then WN:Writing an article which is a tutorial for newcomers.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Pi Zero - thanks you so much for explaining this to me. I am sorry for misunderstanding this, now I understand. Totally my fault. I will go over to wikiepedia. and if news comes up that is worthy of a wiki article, then I will come back here. Finally, I do not have the text I wrote. If you could undelete it just for a moment, I will copy it. Then drop you a note here that I have it. Thanks again. PS Pi Zero - when you undelete it temporarily, how will I find it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dutchbytes33 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 28 February 2016
 * I've undeleted it; it's at the same name, Trisha Posner. --Pi zero (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Pi Zero. I got it. You can delete it again. Sorry for the error and any waste of your time! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dutchbytes33 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 February 2016
 * No trouble; happy to be of help. --Pi zero (talk) 15:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Strong rains in Brazil leave at least 21 dead
Hello, I wonder if you can apply revision article, if it needs to be improved, let me know and correct. Thank you -- Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 12:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope to look at it later this morning. The Spanish sources make it more challenging, of course; and I would have tackled it last night except I'd just come out of a (very satisfying) multi-hour review of Wikinews interviews three figures from Donald Trump's political past.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, take your time. Greetings and Thanks --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 12:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I find stronger than those two and now that you thoroughly review all point to DW and EFE. Will I have to wait until another article drawn up in other news media that use your own words? If not, you do not feel Article will continue to stand? Now I'm reading policies here and are different from the Spanish Wikinews (from which I come and I have several written articles) In addition, the reviewers here make deeper reviews, articles, note that here are more serious criterion. Regarding article, the only thing left now is to find more sources for the article, I also thank you review my article and let you know if I find some source to fix it and you check it again. Greetings and thanks. --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 16:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, our policies are different.  The strong review criteria at English Wikinews make us a challenging place to publish, and also heighten the value of our output.  We've had university journalism professors send classes of students here for "hard news" training.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's good, because so there is more credibility and seriousness with which is itself the project. Now I'm looking for sources to add to the article, all I found cite EFE and DW, if I find anything, I'll find sources of local media in Brazil. I'll call here when adding sources to again review section. Greetings --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 19:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, add enough supplies of Portuguese origin mostly, but also add English and Spanish sources, they are all I could find. I also read the peer review and I realized that I also specify that there was a problem with writing English, try to correct it so that it is legible, I can no longer be corrected deeper. If it still serves the article, then proceed to mark it for deletion. Greetings --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 20:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't explained this well enough; apologies. The Sources section of an en.wn article isn't just a list of articles related to the focus of our article, it's a list of sources that were drawn upon by our article; it's the sources from which our article got its information.  You've listed more articles in the Sources section, but the text submitted here is still based on just one source.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This was all I could do, I find more sources to add to the article. Mark it article for deletion. Greetings and thanks for everything. --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for the time being continue in the Spanish version of Wikinews, as I see it here too strict the issue of publications and also observe the articles out there on the cover and are much more professional, for the moment is all that I can give. You may return at some point, but for now I will stay in the Spanish version. Greetings and thank you very much for your kindness in answering my questions and check my disastrous article. --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 21:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikidialogs
Hey, I just went to the Reader Interaction Consultation page thinking about adding a link to your essay on Wikidialogs, and found that you have already done it. And one of a tiny handful of suggestions there, to date! Crazy. Glad you did that -- hope it gets some attention! -Pete (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 * So, I've been wanting to follow up about the tools on Commons -- I finally decided it would be easiest just to make a short demo video. Hope this is interesting! -Pete (talk) 06:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

 * Hi Pete. I admit, it was something of an Awful Realization for me, as I was finishing the post for mw, that discussions for all that stuff would use Flow — which I see as a chat system fundamentally unsuitable for serious discussion (and, even as a chat system, we considered here whether it might be worth replacing LQT for our "opinion" pages and concluded that LQT is a far superior option, despite all LQT's problems); I see Flow as a visible manifestation of the Foundation's deeply held belief that the volunteers are not to be taken seriously at all. About the demo:  Yes, interesting.  I would indeed expect those sorts of things to be empowered by wikidialog, in the long run of course (I'm playing the long game, here, which I also see as part of wiki culture, avoiding the commercial rat-race that prevents industry from enacting whole classes of socially beneficial tasks that nonprofit wikis can undertake).  The interface would look a bit different, and the way it's developed would be different and "nearer to the ground", actual wiki markup pages defining all the interactive stuff.  The process of developing wikidialog never ends; rather, it slowly moves upward in level of abstraction.  At the very start, I was mucking around in very low-level mechanisms; then I was trying to do small practical things on the wiki (for example, the one bit of wikidialog in serious use now is the "see older articles" button on topic category pages, like so.)  I'm trying to move up to some bigger things now, such as a splash page for our archives.  As I learn how to use the low-level tools for higher-level things, I'm tweaking the low-level tools, but (hopefully) the low-level tweaks are getting smaller and smaller, and I'm getting insights into how the process of using the low-level tools might be made easier.  The low-level tools include some features intended to allow, eventually, interactive assistants that help the user to build and modify interactive assistants.  But none of it can happen overnight, and the only way to have a truly uniform, consistent system is to take that extra time and effort to slowly learn how to build it up from an honest base of wiki markup.  It can't be a coincidence, of course, that I'm favoring a strategy that suits my temperament and my expertise.  My doctoral dissertation was in programming language design, about building a really powerful language from really simple primitives; and my favorite song from Mr. Rogers was always "I like to take my time" (I mean that when I want to do a thing, I like to take my time and do it right :-).  --Pi zero (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Istanbul suicide bombing leaving 5 people deceased
I surrender to this wiki, I can never publish an article with policies here, the other article I hize heavy rains in Brazil in terms Wikinews headlines homepage Spanish. No I will manage to get used to the rules here. For now I'm definitely going despite all this, I congratulate you because here if quality journalism and that the filters are much more serious, reviewers here but have to fail thousands of times the articles, they will do so until corrected, in change in the wiki in Spanish, only if set in spelling, neutral point of view and that no copies Support, sometimes not even apply peer review. As I say, I hope they continue and go now. Greetings and thank you very much. -- Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 22:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC) P. D .: Clear the article Brazil and this, nobody will fix...

Facebook
I know you can't post news to Facebook anymore, but if you can still access it could you ping me on it (or to my GMX email address) when a new story goes up? Missed several which would now be stale to push to FB, largely due to working on pulling together enough photos for next month's exhibition. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

CATs
Hello, admin. I saw the recent changes and a lot of categories are being modified. Ah, such a tiresome work. Well, I wanted to know if we have list of all the categories available? (By the way, the thing you are doing is really tedious. I hope I can endeavour patience like you!) 14.139.242.195 (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

 * There is Special:Categories. The top of our hierarchy is meant to be Category:Category, and Special:UncategorizedCategories lists those categories that aren't in the hierarchy yet — or, at least, the ones that aren't in a hierarchy of some sort.  Our category hierarchy is at least slightly circular, because our Category:Category is internal while our Category:Internal Wikinews organization is a category; and there's no easy way to prove that there isn't some other, logically unconnected circular set of categories that would therefore also not show up in Special:UncategorizedCategories. Atm I'm going through all the subcategories of Category:People by occupation, trying to make sure every person category in every occupation is also listed at Category:News articles by person.  I also have to go through every person listed at Category:News articles by person and make sure if it isn't listed under an occupation then it's listed instead under Category:People not categorized by occupation.  I suppose it would have been easier to populate People not categorized by occupation first, but, whatever.  This would all be easier if the DPL extension could handle more than six categories at a time, or if it could do transitive closures of categories.
 * I did not see the reply till I saw the recent changes of 'KC Browser'. I really want ping to work for IPs. 14.139.242.195 (talk) 05:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping is for reaching people; an IP can't identify a person. Identifying oneself is the purpose of logging in.  --Pi zero (talk) 10:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, but I was not aware that you had replied. Moreover, I was not sure if the new section had been added because of poor WiFi signals. 14.139.242.195 (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

KC Browser
Why my page is deleted ? It's not advertising or spam ! With proofs !! I'm Mohammad (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

KC Browser
Why my is being deleted ? It's not spam or advertising !!! I'm Mohammad (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I had intended to delete it on the grounds that it's encyclopedic — about a thing, rather than about a recent event — and clicked the wrong item on the menu; apologies. You may find page WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing useful as a compact overview of Wikinews, and WN:Writing an article as a tutorial on writing an article.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again!
I know I am a notoriously difficult contributor and this is only my second article. I am however, heavily invested in this topic and would to get it right. Thank you for your guidance and patience on this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmer559 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 April 2016

Major Colombian newspaper reveals Bogotá mayor does not hold claimed PhD degree
Hi, i have made a few corrections to this article and added an English language source. I have also removed the Original Source label. Could you please review again. Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martín Oregón (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 April 2016
 * I saw you'd made some revisions and resubmitted. I knew I wouldn't be able to re-review before midnight UTC (that's only about fifteen minutes from now), but I'm hoping I can review it tonight my time (i.e., within the next few hours).  Should be able to factor the shortage of English coverage into judgement on freshness.  In review the bit at the end clearly has to be softened so it doesn't say it was an interview; but since I'm only basing that on my troublesome grasp on the Portuguese source, I'd have to be especially cautious not to add anything I can't be quite, quite certain about.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Realistically, I can't do the review this evening (local). My next opportunity is seven or eight hours from now. :-S  --Pi zero (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Clinton's politics called into question after Isis accusation
Hey, I keep being told to use a fresh lede then to lead into my original story (journalism major), I found one about a recent accusation and then used it to lead into my story about the emails, but I'm not sure if it's too off topic? I'm trying to learn and the criticism is definitely helping. I want to get it right!

Jmer559 (talk) 07:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation of Article from Other Wikinews
Hello, I wonder if there is any template to indicate that the article is a translation from another Wikinews. Regards. -- Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 21:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. Translated Wikinews.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 22:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sfdg44
Service link : Special: Nuke/Sfdg44. 103.6.159.81 (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

RE:Frontal system wreaks havoc in central zone of Chile
This happens because it was never revised time and all the effort made in the translation of all these paragraphs came to nothing. Biggest frustration that I lost time to write this article by the pure. -- Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 04:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Plasticous capensis
Please could you stop deleting my page, it is clearly fiction, but its purpose is for an art project. It is an environmental intervention project to raise awareness about plastic waste in the ocean. I would appreciate it if you could stop interfering. Regards CarolineDT —The preceding comment was added by CarolineDT (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 April 2016
 * Hi, CarolineDT. With respect, Wikinews is a news site.  It is not an appropriate site to host a work of fiction.  You might inquire at Wikiversity; I do recommend asking first, as a matter of courtesy.  Re Wikinews, see also WN:PILLARS.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Bus explosion in Armenian capital kills two
Hello, thanks for your help with my article. I have fixed what you told me to, but I'm not sure what to do next. It's my first time here so sorry if I'm a bit difficult. Please let me know if there's anything I have to do with my article. Thank you!Tia UOW (talk) 04:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You've submitted it for review; the next move is for a reviewer to review it. I'm the most active reviewer here atm; I turned in early last night (with a spring cold; yes, we're on opposite sides of the world north/south as well as east/west), slept late, and have just gotten up.  It's likely — though never certain, since reviewers here are volunteers too — that I'll get to your article sometime in the next few hours. Btw, when leaving a message, just put four tildes  at the end, rather than at the beginning and end.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi_zero I just got your message. I will update my article now. ThanksTia UOW (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

 * Btw, the way to "ping" another user is to write wiki markup  (where   is the user name, such as  ).  Though it's not actually necessary to type that when leaving a comment on that user's user talk page since they get notified of that even without the explicit ping.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

copyedited
I copyedited some of it. --Longboarder2000 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Addressed this in a message on your user talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ivory article
Hi Pi zero, I am going to make some changes regarding the value of the ivory. They are off by a factor of 1000. I don't know if you want to add some correction templates to the article or not. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, SVTCobra, thanks for catching the error. I suppose I missed it exactly because it's so obviously wrong, which puts it in a weird class.  We do need to have a correction notice I think, so I added one.  If it were a typo that doesn't change the meaning, we'd just fix it; if it were a typo that does change the meaning, ordinarily, we'd put on a correction notice instead of fixing the article text itself.  But this?  A typo-ish error that substantively changes the meaning but is so obviously wrong that readers would probably understand what it ought to say and might even not notice it (well, I didn't)?  I suppose fixing the text and issuing a correction notice is a credible way to handle it.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL ... I saw the headline and was thinking "wow, I can afford ivory" ... ;-) Then I read the Swedish sources and saw the mistake.  Then I saw the history and the original author wrote something like 250,00 thousand ... I think he must be from India .. they split numbers after 2 zeroes not 3.  I think this is were the mistake originated. Cheers,--SVTCobra 06:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not an Indian, but probably a European editor. To say Eighty-eight and half km, Europeans write 88,5 km. To say One hundred and twenty-five thousand, they write 125.000 link acagastya   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  20:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Landslide in China leaves 41 people missing
I have corrected the article. Consider please review it again. Thank you. -- Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 03:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

RE:Rouseff article
Undoubtedly the best writing another article contained and had more details. Similarly, all the effort I made in translating the article went away, mark it for deletion because so poor translation next to a perfectly written article and accurate information from a native speaker. Regards. -- Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 18:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

World's oldest known hafted axe fragment found in Western Australia
Thank you for your help with this article, it definitely needed work before it was ready. You've helped me out twice now when my articles weren't completely up to scratch and your suggestions were constructive and super helpful. It's obvious that you put a lot of work into ensuring Wikinews maintains a certain standard and I just wanted to let you know that we all really appreciate it. Even the smaller, final changes you make to articles before they're ready to be published don't go unnoticed, you're doing really great work, thank you so much! -- MatAtUow (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Thanks.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Reproduce Articles VOA
Hello, I wonder if here you can create items copied from the "Voz de América" page (which releases its contents in the public domain), if so, what is what to do when creating these items? Regards and Thanks. -- Alvaro Molina  (Let's Talk ) 05:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can copy their articles. We have to use this template VOA. Also we can copy Southeast European Times, but for some reasons, their website is not loading. But the rule is two independent sources confirming that the event happened. acagastya   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  08:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:AlvaroMolina, User:Acagastya: When we use VOA as a source, we don't have to worry about copying particular passages because VOA is public domain.  However, VOA is a propaganda outlet — and, in general, a much more slickly done one than FOX News — so we have to treat it with extreme caution.  --Pi zero (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Is everything okay?
I did not find you on IRC. Is everything okay? acagastya  ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  21:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh. Sorry.  Am back on IRC now.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, reviewing would be time consuming, I feel it will be. First, I was not able to reach the minimal length, but then I somehow managed to. Please review Der Klassiker article first. But, is the Spanish phrase okay in the heading? acagastya   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  11:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At first glance, it looks okay to me.
 * I'm looking at a review queue with thirteen articles on it. Thanks for guidance on your preference re review of your articles (and thanks for the advance warning they were coming, which also helps).  I'll want to review articles likely to pass, which helps your articles of course, but I also want to avoid letting newcomer's articles starve, which probably limits how many of your articles I'd tackle promptly.  So we'll just have to see how this goes.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I am not considering to write the other two. Well, we discussed them being arch rivals in Mats Hummels' article. And, if we are not keeping DFB logo on that article (which was a weird thing I did), please add this image File:Manuel Neuer, Germany national football team (07).jpg, with caption: File photo of Manuel Neuer who saved the penalty kick of Bender. acagastya   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  12:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

39 minutes
Hm. Yup as predicted! Was it the fastest? (Sorry for the Manchester United article though) acagastya   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  18:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not keep track specifically. Anything under an hour is definitely unusual, though, and yes, you were right. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, talking about this line Mats Hummels, the captain of Bayern's rivals Borussia Dortmund, should not it read ex-captain, or something similar? acagastya   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  03:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And actually, there were (no pun intended) 39 important words to be verified. The rest was either quotes, and file photo or verified in the last article. acagastya   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  03:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it was my impression he was captain right up until the switch, so saying "ex-caption" would also open up a potential for misunderstanding, wouldn't it? --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, his contract did terminate when BVB let him go, paying his buyout clause. And only then he was able to sign Bayern contract. The season ended with DFB-Pokal. Better we can say '..., who captained Borussia Dortmund last season? acagastya   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  15:12, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds okay. If you could make that edit very soon (the article was publish a little less than a day ago), I could sight that.  (I might be able to sight it beyond the 24 hour horizon, but it'd be better to just be on the right side of the horizon.)  --Pi zero (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Doubt
I saw in RC that you deleted a page called Borussia Dortmund complete signing of highly rated Frenchman Ousmane Dembélé. Also, author was acagastya. But I moved the page. Moving a page makes me the author of the previous page? acagastya  ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  16:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically, a redirect to a nonexistant page. Of course the redirect could have been sent to the published article, but then there's still WN:SD: redirects created by renaming an article before publication can be deleted after publication (unless the publication was before 2009).  Most of the R3s don't actually get deleted, but could be; see Category:Discretionary mainspace redirects.  --Pi zero (talk)
 * So, why aren't the deleted? And why redirects before 2009 can't be deleted? acagastya   ⚽ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰  08:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A (currently inactive) Wikinewsie maintained deleting redirects creates a lot of server load, so we mostly just tag redirects according to which ones we could delete at our discretion. And, when I proposed the policy change, BRS remarked that before 2009 there wasn't as much of a clear moment of publication, so that one couldn't distinguish which redirects are post-publish and therefore should be kept to avoid memory holes.  The total number of redirects on the project, btw, I suspect is fairly close to the same as the number of articles, about twenty thousand (maybe a bit less).  Since I added that to my general administrative tasks I've processed more than a quarter of them, though I admit I'm not getting to as much of such things lately since I only want (1) to do enough so progress on them is positive rather than negative and (2) to understand them well enough so when the time comes I know how to design semi-automated assistants for them.  I pretty much understand the tasks, and don't expect to make really massive progress on them until semi-automated assistants are in place.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

vandalism of userpages

 * Please do not make changes to my old userpages or to my current userpage! I had to get an entirely new Wikimedia account because of your vandalism of my old account, but I am hoping that we can have a clean start here and focus on newswriting instead of this userspace nonsense.  There are much more important things to focus on on Wikinews, such as editing and creating actual news articles.  Wikinews is still the lowest-trafficked Wikimedia project, and needs all the help it can get.  NicoleSharpRFS (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you would like to do something constructive instead of destructive, I could use some help in rewriting "Chadian dictator Hissène Habré found guilty of crimes against humanity." I didn't know that the text couldn't be copied from Wikipedia, so I have to rewrite that, and I was thinking about adding a bit more background on his house arrest in Senegal and the attempts at prosecuting him over the past several years.  Wikinews hasn't had any articles on Hissène Habré since 2011.  NicoleSharpRFS (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 * User blocked for block evasion. --Pi zero (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest submission
In the Reus' article, there is a comment in the body. It informs the final squad. Add it if it is below minimal length. acagastya 16:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And, if everything is fine, it would take some 30 minutes. acagastya  18:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty close, yeah; 30 minutes and change. --Pi zero (talk) 20:08, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 33' since review. Yay! :D But shouldn't we remove the commented info? acagastya  20:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Gündogan signs Manchester City
45 minutes? acagastya 12:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There are six paragraphs in the article, third and fourth being quotes only.
 * Third para (quote) is from Manchester City's source. Fourth paragraph is from Borussia Dortmund's source.
 * I was depressed today. Nothing good happened in the whole day. Then I got the story to improve. Thanks for reviewing it, giving it priority above others. Thank you! Something to cheer for. But yes, I did want to say that moving the page without leaving a redirect make a bitlink point to a deleted article. I really wish it was a college day and I could be there on IRC.I want to discuss something. acagastya 20:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to inform...
Copa América 2016 has started in the US. UEFA Euro still has six days to begin. I can't submit the article of today's match before 5:30 PM UTC since I am not at home. But one article submission each day. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 08:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for warning me. I can only try, but it really does help to know what's coming.  --Pi zero (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Things are not working out. I remember once you told me that if it was possible, you would split yourself into four to review [the four articles which were about to lose freshness]. Now I know how it feels. Things are not working out, I failed to start six articles. Plus, in the current scenario, I don't think I would be able to submit football articles. I might cover the knock-out phase if time permits. Sorry. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 17:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Headline
"Brisbane man granted bail after charged with rape of 15-year-old girl" is not a proper title since "after charged with rape" does not make sense. If we follow the usual love of the mid-headline comma (virtually unknown in the UK, incidentally, so an alien form to me), we could have "Brisbane man charged with rape of 15-year-old girl, granted bail", which also highlights the main issues in order of chronology and, arguably, importance. Bencherlite (talk) (from alt account) 15:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree it's awkward; I'll give it further thought. --Pi zero (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit filed against Ed Sheeran for his single Photograph
Though sources have much to tell, I don't feel like increasing the content for the synthesis. Let me know if it crosses minimal length. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 10:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That looks below minimum, tbh. --Pi zero (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Will grow it later. I am moving it to main space if someone else wants to collaborate... <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 11:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

"Develop To Review Button"
Hi, the "DevelopToReviewButton" depends on User:Bawolff/mwapilib2.js. That script is old and will stop working later this year. In the worst case scenario, it would throw JavaScript errors that prevents not just itself, but even other JavaScript from working. --SleaY (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I noticed source listed at the bottom would not appear in the rest area when I click it. <please check if it acts the same for you or is it problem with my Firefox browser> <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 15:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft
Shouldn't the template be protected allowing the customisation elsewhere? Currently, nine archived stories use the infobox. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure. --Pi zero (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Microsoft
"seems like we'd do better /not/ to use logos when we can avoid such; it's kind of advertising, and visually not so interesting" ... but a picture of an old Microsoft logo on a sign is visually interesting? It's basically the same thing (both are logos), but one inaccurately represents the company since it is outdated. –  Nascar1996  ( talk • cont ) 15:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better picture? --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but should we use consistency between all tech companies? Google and Apple both use logos. –  Nascar1996  ( talk • cont ) 15:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they oughtn't. There's always plenty of stuff that could be improved, so just because a bunch of things do it doesn't mean it's the best choice.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I found three pictures that may be better than the current one: File:Microsoft buildings EU.jpg, File:Microsoft European HQ - Paris.jpg, and File:Microsoft building 17 front door tj.png. Which one do you believe would be the best one? I'm leaning toward Microsoft buildings EU.jpg. –  Nascar1996  ( talk • cont ) 16:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I rather like the EU one too. --Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

about Help to develop Farmer
Hi dear friend, Will you known that, Farmers are a Frist Doctor of of the world because they grow raw materials of medicine and providing food too us.

So, many people are talking about Farmers but never Respecting them. We have many society to respect to Farmers by Providing National Farmers Day.

Your sincere Dev Dhawal Members of Fsc Rupandehi Dev Dhawal (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The rules of football
Hello Pi zero, I am interested by your interpretation of the rules of football which has led you to a conclusion that fouling a player in your penalty area doesn't result in the award of a penalty kick against you. Which version of the rules are you looking at?! Whichever one it is, it is not a version that anyone in Euro 2016 is using. From your knowledge of the rules of football, then, why was the penalty kick awarded? If it would help to watch the incident, so I can understand where the referee went wrong, try this video from 6:30 in. Bencherlite (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not what I said about the rules. The synthesis passage in question says he was shown a yellow card for bringing down another player in the penalty area.  I tried but failed to verify, from the sources provided, that the bringing-down was in the penalty area; so I removed such assertion.  You proposed to add back in the part about it being in the penalty area, with the edit summary "you only win a penalty if the foul was in the penalty area" (emphasis added).  Certainly if the Rules of the Game say bringing down another player outside the penalty area would not result in a free kick, then from the fact that a free kick was awarded one could reasonably deduce that the incident took place inside the penalty area.  So I consulted the Rules of the Game; but the Rules, as I read them, said bringing down another player is worth a free kick.  With no qualification about whether it happened within the penalty area.  I think there was some other infraction the rules said was only worth a free kick if it happened in the penalty box, but there was no such restriction on bringing down another player.  Therefore, from the fact that a free kick was awarded for bringing down another player, I was unable to deduce, based on the Rules, that the bringing-down would have had to be in the penalty area.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is beyond my time and patience to explain football in detail to you. Only fouls inside the penalty area result in a penalty kick. Fouling another player inside the penalty area does not result in a free kick, but in a penalty kick. Fouls outside the penalty area result in a free kick.  Fouls outside the penalty area do not result in a penalty kick.  A penalty kick was awarded because of this foul on Ronaldo.  Therefore it was a foul in the penalty area. It is such a basic point about how football is played that it does not need further sourcing.  (I'm trying to think of a US sport equivalent - a home run in baseball is only scored if you go round all the bases, so if we know that X scored a home run, we know by definition he went round all the bases.  Similarly, by definition, as this was a penalty kick, the foul did not happen outside the penalty area). If this is still controversial (I promise you, it isn't) or difficult to follow, see the video link of the incident posted above, where you will see for yourself what millions of people watching the game saw, or ask  to educate you further.  Bencherlite (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On other occasions you've been extremely helpful on Wikinews, and I value that help. Occasionally things don't go so smoothly; I don't know why.  Alas, in this case, the video link you provided isn't suitable for use as a source unless one could show it isn't pirated (I suspect it is pirated, which would make it hard to show it isn't); while the video acagastya just submitted as a source doesn't work (page reports the video unavailable).  Meanwhile, we're approaching the 24-hour horizon after which substantive additions would no longer be permitted.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent, you're playing the man not the ball. I'm not suggesting adding the video as a source - I'm just using it for your reference / information. But feel free to concentrate on the merits of the sourcing of the video rather than anything else, and to stonewall until the 24 hours are up and you can win by default even though you are in the minority here. Cheers, and feel free to ask for help next time you don't understand how football is played. Bencherlite (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wtf? Wikinews collaboration cannot succeed if it's adversarial; when a writer treats a reviewer as "the enemy", everyone loses.  The article never got improved.  If you think I consider that a win, you're deluding yourself.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Commas
FWIW, this was something my editor and I argued over, back when I was in the business: "Orlando, Florida, nightclub" and "June 10, 2016, shooting" (to use two examples) are correct. I was told we use AP style, which isn't. I wrote it correctly anyway just to make him "fix" it. 🖖 ATS /  Talk  21:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not a prescriptivist, although I do recognize there are some conventions that are worth favoring as they serve some useful function (actually, I see the no-comma convention serving a more useful function in this case). We don't use AP style, of course — we use the Style guide, which is crafted for brevity rather than detail so it can realistically be read through in a single session.  There's one (unremarked) example in the style guide that does a date your way (shrug).  But honestly the article has other problems that actually matter, which make the point about commas vanishingly trivial, either way.  Just keep in mind that good-natured interplay is all very well within reason but, whatever fun you and your editor may have had, on Wikinews the single most underavailable resource is reviewer labor.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. 🖖 ATS /  Talk  22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Conventions have changed, it seems, from what I was taught; for example, we never ever started a story with a date or an "according to" because it buries the lede. Or am I too removed from my former profession (he said, thankfully)? xD 🖖 ATS /  Talk  23:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I've never worked in journalism, though I have by now an appalling amount of experience as a Wikinews reviewer. The "According to" isn't ideal, but... my reasoning is that the party who acted on Wednesday was the police; the focal event is the police released a report.  I'd first tried to say something like "A report said", or "In a report, police said", but it wasn't working because the sentence came out with a distressing lack of commas that make it hard to parse.  I also wanted the date toward the front if possible, as I tend to treat it as quite important (though many news services these days seem to have forgotten it's one of the five Ws at all).  As another Wikinewsie noted at WN:Five Ws and H, if the lede doesn't contain a "day" word, such as "today", "yesterday", "Tuesday", etc., there's probably something wrong.  Besides the whole five-Ws thing, we also ask that the lede establish newsworthiness, one of the elements of which is freshness which usually can't be established without saying which day the focal event happened.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The lede is indeed to establish newsworthiness—and the focal point (at least, using the way I was taught over a decade-plus in the business) is not that OPD released a summary (it's not a report, BTW, the better phrase would be "according to details" or "according to new details") but that the perp was an infatuated fan who lived like a hermit, according to that summary. For example, the Associated Press focused on the obsession ...
 * "Kevin Loibl, the man Orlando Police detectives say fatally shot Grimmie as she was signing autographs after a concert, spent most of his time watching Grimmie on YouTube and that he constantly monitored her social media accounts, his friend, Cory Dennington, told detectives."
 * ... first hitting what's new, then its source. 🖖 ATS /  Talk  23:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If we combined your notes and my training, the lede would read:
 * "The man who murdered Christina Grimmie following a June 10 concert lived 'like a hermit' and had never met the singer, but was infatuated with her and had spent the previous three months changing his appearance in an effort to win her over, according to new details released by police in Orlando, Florida."
 * 🖖 ATS /  Talk  23:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I raher like that version, actually. Though I expect either would work sufficiently, and expect to mull it over in my backbrain at relative leisure. (Side note: I do aspire to avoid prescriptivism, but admit I cringed every time I read in the police document "laying" for "lying". :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm right there with you, fellow pedant ... xDDD 🖖 ATS /  Talk  00:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nice catch
Wups, my bad. Here's the correct source for the public memorial: 🖖 ATS /  Talk  00:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Session expired on IRC
Just lost connection, but yeah: good night! <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 04:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Football title
Wales Northern vs Ireland? Really? Bencherlite (talk) 00:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would have been helpful to put the remark on the article talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Playing the man not the ball again, I see. Ungracious and unbecoming of you. Bencherlite (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally I (and others, from remarks I've heard) appreciate your help but find your manner rather... grating, perhaps (though mean-spirited might be a more subjectively descriptive choice). I've found myself defending you more than once, to relative newcomers to Wikinews, as a useful contributor who has a gruff manner, and an example of the colorful variety of unique personalities one finds on Wikinews.  I make an effort to be more gracious to you than your manner has come across to me, in hopes that would tend to damp out positive feedback loops.  Sometimes it works, other times no so much; it's harder when you come across to me especially grating, and like most of my human relations it's hampered by my impulse to treat other people like highly rational beings and tell the truth to them (perhaps you can imagine how badly that works in most situations).  It often seems as if you enjoy complaining about others here being stupid and unreasonable, so you devise excuses to portray them so (see how badly that works?).  In this case the impression is a bit vague because your two recent uses of the expression "playing the man and not the ball" are the only times in my life I recall having heard such an expression and I have no clear guess what it means beyond likely fitting into some preferred prejudice of yours about what you want me to mean.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't have the time or energy to defend myself against your hearsay accounts of off-wiki complaints. Please remove my reviewer bit and correct your own mistakes in future: I count several in Griezmann signs contract extension with Atlético Madrid ("announced contract extension" is bad English; "played the UEFA Champions League final" is missing the word "in"; "scored seven goals in reaching the finals" confuses singular and plural and is missing a "." – although to balance this out, "After contract extension." has a stray "." but is missing some words, to make it something like "After announcing the contract extension,"; and finally "Mundo Deportivo" should be in italics).  And that is it - a sadly not-untypical list of avoidable errors in a short article.  Over and out. Bencherlite (talk) 18:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant to communicate a positive message, that I respect you enough to defend you. I'm sorry if that looked from your side like a hearsay attack.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Analysis of Original Reporting
Ok, In Re: Congress to consider H.R. 5321, I request you to clarify a few things, for a more concrete understanding of your position. having added a couple new clarifying sources (specifically the text of Fed. R. Crim. P. 41, both as in effect, and as to be amended} It seems that the sources provide for every essential element of information to be had, unless there's specific information in the article you would like to be sourced, which I would appreciate you mentioning. (for the moment, I am the issue of Senator Brindenstine's letter as its own issue to be addressed in order, I'm specifically here talking about inclusion of other sources which that letter doesn't cover in and of itself) As for the text of the rules, they come from undisputed sources, and while I could include multiple cites to the same material, to do so would be overly redundant, as several different places on the web contain identical copies.) It appears to me that source wise, about everything is covered, without resorting to redundancy, though I could perhaps cite to other stories on the same subject. As for Rep. Brindenstine's letter, if you have any better suggestions as to how you would like me to proffer that letter without compromising email account security, I'm all ears. I have access to the original email at the moment, and I'm willing to consider your suggestions on alternate means of approaching the situation. As for issues with style, what other pertinent information may be included in your opinion, that establishes any thing uniquely new from what's already there, that would so much as be relevant to the story? It would seem to me that one would want the story to read relatively fast, with the intro paragraph being rather subtle and leading in, as opposed to being a giant block of wordy text. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScruffMcGruff007 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 3 July 2016

Process to become a reviewer
Your job as a reviewer and what it entails seems interesting to me.

Knowing myself (as someone who just joined Wikinews), I know I can't apply for reviewer rights yet but I must ask:

I read the requirements to become a reviewer: one of which is "gaining reputation".

How can this be accomplished?

Thanks,

Keithman3 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Basically, you contribute. We see what you do, how you do it, how you behave... we get to know you; we get an impression of you by interacting with you over time.  Some of us, of course, interact with you more directly than others.  The "paper trail" you leave behind, and the comments by those who have interacted with you more directly, are what less-directly-engaged Wikinewsies would go by.  Somewhat related link: WN:Never assume.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * How can I go about fulfilling that requirement, if I choose to start now?

Keithman3 (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * The only reason I ask is to maybe become a reviewer and help around here, since you seem to be running a one-man show.

 * Keithman3 (talk) 02:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

gee, isn't that interesting- to elect "Reviewers" based upon being a member of some sort of clique, which lends toward reviewers not acting with a reasonable impartiality, especially toward new users. Seems highly inappropriate, given what the site is supposed to be. ScruffMcGruff007 (talk) 04:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * <waxes philosophical for a moment> Neutrality and reliability are only possible for an open community if it has a specially-trusted set of individuals at the core; in the case of news reporting, without a trusted core what you've got is essentially blogging, which has either zero journalistic credibility or, arguably, less than zero. The obvious danger is corruption of the trusted core (an argument likely to be trotted out by those trying to do things the trusted core exists to protect the community from); this obvious danger is best averted by one or another form of community selection of the core.  Wikinews has a remarkably successful system for selecting its trusted core, due in part to the fact that the entire community is oriented around earned reputation but, realistically, also thanks to the nature of our task: producing neutral, reliable reports of factual events with sourcing radically out in the open.  Very visible and, on a relative scale, highly objective.  Much more objective than the task of Wikipedia, which has subjectivity built into what it's trying to do; an encyclopedia summarizes knowledge of all kinds, consequently much of the knowledge is subjective and the choice of how to summarize it is subjective. And Wikipedia has, in turn, an easier task than, say, a real-world government, where there's no limit to how murkily subjective things can get and no way to pass off the most difficult problems to someone else. </philosophy> Keithman3:  One rule of thumb is, it's not time to consider reviewership until you're routinely writing aritcles that have no real problems.  Beyond that, everyone has to follow their instincts, on a case-by-case basis.  I can see you're improving; let's just give it time and see where that leads.  We had someone here a few months back who did really well and we gave them the review bit — and after doing one review they seem to have decided it wasn't for them.  We've known for many years we need to make the review task easier, and even had a major project split a few years ago over whether to do that by lowering standards or some other way (the lower-standards folks went elsewhere, had their chance to try it, and discovered it doesn't work).  My plan is to make possible, and then make real, semi-automated assistants for all aspects of the project; and I have the ability to do that but it takes time, while meanwhile the review queue has to be kept moving.

 * : Your input wasn't necessary nor helpful especially due to the fact I was addressing.

 * You seem to show distaste for him - which is fine - but I only ask that you refrain from trying to express it in questions like this. Your input is welcome; but it should at least be helpful.

Keithman3 (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 * : How is it not necessary or helpful to point out the fact that what is supposed to be "peer" review appears to be some sort of "administrative" review. Given the basic concept of "Peer" review, the task should be equally available to ALL members of the applicable peer group, otherwise the whole process gets muddled down with inappropriate office-style politics, that tend to give reviewers the appearance of being subjective in their reviews, which is inappropriate for this type of forum. I'm just simply pointing out to you, that if it involves the mentality of "who you know" and "Who likes you", then its really not worth it to even bother, because its nothing more than a rigged sham at the end of the day. Just a word of practical advice.

 * You are allowed to have your opinion, and I can see what you mean.

 * I, though, make it into my long-term goals despite the "reputation" thing.

 * If everyone reviewed every article, there would be chaos. Maybe there it is a different process than its name states, however I respect the fact that Reviewers should be known in the community for their good article writing as well as knowledge of Wikinews policy.

 * If you're going to be reviewing an article, you've got to know what you're doing. People like Pi zero have been doing things like this for a long time, and I appreciate a review from a person like that WAY more than a member who just joined Wikinews.

 * Also, the people you know are going to be deciding whether to appoint you as a reviewer, so yes, you do need to know lots of people who can vouch for your reviewership application.

 * Keithman3 (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Swap on Main Page
Lead article 2 has small lede. (On my cellphone, a big gap appears since lead article 3 has bigger lede. How about swapping 2 and 5 (or probably 2 with 1?) <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 03:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is showing two sentences any better? --Pi zero (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Better in the landscape orientation. (Now I know why editors have a copy of the Main Page). <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 03:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem persists. I leave it up to you but I would have swapped 1-2. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 15:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

del Bosque's article to be renamed
Since he has three weeks left in his contact, please rename the article without leaving a redirect. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 18:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you want it renamed to? --Pi zero (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * del Bosque to quit Spanish team management after contract expiry <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 04:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Final piece added to China's new radio telescope
Just wanted to clarify that I read the sources incorrectly; I believe the entire telescope is the size of thirty football fields. Keithman3 (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Area versus diameter? That might explain it, yes (though I suspect it's a pretty rough number).  --Pi zero (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC

Trump celbrates Brexit vote
I believe that the article is mainly the words of the Sacremento Bee, specifically:

 Article:  TURNBERRY, Scotland- U.S. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump hailed the vote for Britain to leave the European Union on June 24, in Ayrshire, Scotland, stating that the people of the UK had finally "taken their country back."

 SB:  TURNBERRY, Scotland - Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump celebrated Britain's stunning vote to leave the European Union Friday in Ayrshire, Scotland, saying that the people of the United Kingdom have "taken their country back."

 Article:  His two-day visit to Scotland, comes at a historical moment, when UK voters defied the political establishment, and voted to leave the European Union. The vote, which trump called a "fantastic thing", and "historic", had immediate political and economic repercussions around the world.

 SB:  His two-day visit to Scotland comes during a historic and tumultuous moment for the United Kingdom. Voters defied the political establishment Thursday by formally deciding to cut ties with the European Union. The vote, which Trump called a "fantastic thing" and "historic," had immediate political and economic repercussions in the United Kingdom and around the world.

Please respond as to what you believe. Keithman3 (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Those look like serious plagiary problems, yes. I don't know of any automated tool that would recognize the problem, but it leaps out for an English-fluent human reader.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Sheikh Hasina
I was going to add editprotected tonight. Thanks for populating it. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 12:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Congress to consider H.R. 5321, the 'Stop Mass Hacking Act'
I was going to mark this abandoned but decided to the contrary due to its many submissions for review.

Is this technically an abandoned article? I do question its freshness as of now, due to the bill's introduction being June 25. Keithman3 (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been edited for more than four days, so it seems a straightforward case of abandonment. (There are less-than-straightforward cases, but most are simple, as this one.)  --Pi zero (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Five police officers killed in Dallas, Texas during sniper attack
I think this picture could be good on the main page for that article.

It is File:Police Lights.jpg

Keithman3 (talk) 21:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Military Veterans Face Large Challenges Post-Service
Did I do the editorial cleanup correctly, or is that something only admins are supposed to do? Keithman3 (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The points you raise seem reasonable. I added a couple of points.  As for who makes such suggestions, well, we don't stand on a lot of protocol (there are some rules that are non-negotiable, but many things here are more flexible).  The real arbiters are reviewers (we've had admins who aren't reviewers, as well as reviewers who aren't admins). It's possible for a non-reviewer to kind of overstep and give dubious advice, but your advice wasn't unreasonable. As you've likely noticed there's be a bit of a time gap in review just recently, and your advice is certainly more timely than the writer would have gotten otherwise.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I made some edits to cut the editorial cleanup of about 2/3 of the points. If you would like to delete the article you can, I just wanted to let you know. It seems like I'm the only contributor... Keithman3 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Is it the JavaScript
Two times the template (about the sister) was removed when edit summary has a link to this script (User:Ohconfucius/script/Sources.js). I will be checking it this evening. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 04:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the script is causing the problem. I have asked the user to fix it. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 08:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ohconfucious is, historically, an anti-Wikinews agitator, and has a long history of blocks on en.wp for edit-warring, block evasion, and whatnot. --Pi zero (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah! I say to myself: "Bot. Scripts. Kill. Me!" <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 10:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The reply is: Most WP articles are more all-encompassing and better sourced than Wikinews articles on the same o related subjects. I'd be interested to know if you managed to find any links that are useful to Wikipedia readers that the script removed? I don't think blindly claiming fraternal relations matter when it is of no service to Wikipedia users. I guess someone has no idea how to write scripts. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 08:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be clear, at this point, that attempting rational conversation with that person would be a waste of time. That's someone who starts with opinions and then invents "facts" to support them.  There are (btw) two varieties of such people:  the ones who don't care whether the stuff they invent is true — that's Harry Frankfurt's technical definition of  — and the ones who, having invented it, then proceed to believe it.  There's a terminology breakdown, there; according to the usual definitions, it's only a "lie" if the speaker knows it isn't true, and it's only "bullshit" if the speaker doesn't care whether it's true.  If they invent it but then believe it, sometimes they're said to be "believe their own lies", or "believe their own bullshit", but those are awkward phrases to get around the lack of a simple name for this.  I've toyed with the term "dogmatic fabrication", but it's not very satisfying as a term. Of course, if one were bothering with rationality, it's outright nonsensical to apply the article criteria of Wikipedia — criteria chosen to promote the peculiar purposes of Wikipedia — to articles of a different project; to do so is to ignore the different purposes of different sister projects, which result in different content criteria and guarantee that readers consult those projects for different reasons.  Most Wikipedia articles would fail miserably if stacked up against Wikinews article criteria (even if style were entirely ignored), and this is predictably true for the content of any two sister projects.  Which only highlights the arrogant destructive foolishness of any sister project trying to use its own quality-judgements of other sisters' content to suppress sister links.  But all that would only matter to them if they were open to rationality, which evidently they aren't.  As I've remarked before, there's no point in arguing with such fools; it would only detract from the time we spend on Wikinews, which would make them happy.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget to vote!
Arbitration Committee/2016 election/Nominations and voting --Bddpaux (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

ASCII problem
As I had to use Microsoft Word, the ASCII problem of *'* has occurred. Please remember that. I am preparing the quiz. Do you have some questions for on the campaign trial? <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 16:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded the quiz on my sandbox. User:acagastya/sandbox. I haven't created questions about On the campaign trail article. Since I am travelling, I really doubt if I can find some good questions in the mean time. Will try my best. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 16:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Quiz and mail
How do we get this available Dynamic quiz/quiz/2016/30? Plus, I have sent you a mail. <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 11:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Trial trail. Autocorrect! But I remember preparing ten questions! Need to check... <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 07:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Missing pipes was the reason one question was missing and one having three options. (Did you get the (eighth) question correct?) <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 14:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit lost. Which question?  The current eighth question, which wasn't visible before, I actually overlooked when I took the quiz.  I tried that question just now (before making a copyedit to it), and got it right.  (When copyediting the file before, I accidentally saw the answer to one question, so I counted that one as "wrong" since I'd no way of knowing whether I would have gotten it right.)  --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Article
Do u like my article how do feel about .Mikael Mikael Phillips (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

 * You should read WN:Writing an article. --Pi zero (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Something that I consider my achievement
I visited the Main Page thrice before I noticed I had significant contribution to the last five articles. Feels good to have this feat again especially on July 25. (Well it was the 25th in India when the article was published). <span style="font-family:Helvetica; color:rgb(153, 68, 2);">acagastya 15:26, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pi zero/Archive 11


text:
User talk:Ovidlaughing

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ovidlaughing


text:
User talk:Tomás Tchilumbo

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tomás Tchilumbo


text:
User talk:Tonytuelommutsi

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tonytuelommutsi


text:
User talk:Priitika

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Priitika


text:
User talk:AbbassMalik45

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:AbbassMalik45


text:
User talk:Ashir119

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ashir119


text:
User talk:Jozilicious

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 09:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jozilicious


text:
User talk:Dionísio Fernando

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dionísio Fernando


text:
User talk:Baustin15

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Baustin15


text:
User talk:Rimonmahbub

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rimonmahbub