User talk:AlexSG

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your contributions
Hi. Unfortunately, the page you created doesn't appear to be a news article, in the sense of en.wn. We use a collaborative reporter/reviewer system to publish articles about current events; though I recognize that the article you wrote wouldn't fit Wikipedia's criteria, it doesn't seem to fit ours either. As an overview of what we do at en.wn, you might find WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing helpful. --Pi zero (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Do not attempt to self-publish your article. To attempt such is a gross violation of site policy.  It's a blockable offence.  See WN:PILLARS.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Have you read this article personally? It's a simple analysis of the "Image..." known in Ukraine, Poland and of course in Vatican. This "Image..." has occult symbols which are closely linked with Nazi. And don't write that I'm not right and so on. Look through other Christian "Image..." and find on them such symbols. I clearly understand that your site want to be neutral but in some cases, such facts can explain many accidents. So I'll be very pleased if you advise me to whom I can show this article. It will be very helpful indeed. And thanks for your help and dialog. Sorry that all this happen in such way.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlexSG (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 March 2014‎
 * Regarding neutrality &mdash; when you talk about "the real meaning" of symbolism, that's glaringly subjective. Symbolism "means" either (a) what someone rendering it intends or (b) what an observer perceives.  What the renderer intends is not something you can prove to report objectively, except inasmuch as you may be able to report that the renderer made a statement about their intent.  What an observer perceives depends on the observer.
 * You can write a news article around a current event. The focus has to be something specific, relevant, and fresh.  The first paragraph, called the lede, doesn't give background or details; it only briefly summarizes the focus by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about the focus.  In doing so, it makes clear why the focus is significant.  Subsequent paragraphs give further detail on the basic questions, and background information.
 * The article has never had a lede that does nothing but describe a specific focus event. And the body is subjective analysis.  Your opinion of the quality of the analysis (or, for that matter, my opinion of the quality of the analysis) is irrelevant; it's analysis, and we don't publish analysis.  If you pick a focus that's specific, relevant, and fresh, write a lede that's narrowly about that, and write a body that provides objective details/background, that's a potential Wikinews article.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)