User talk:JJLiu112

Archive
Find the archive of posts dated 21/12/2020 to 4/7/2021 here. --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion
For archives, you could also add  to hide edit links from each section/subsection. Not a compulsion, just you might find it useful. •–• 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Danke. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Re my card with no blood group
I wonder if you also saw, the email mentioned on it was wikinewsie.org (and is in fact, a very old design which has sinc been renewed)?
 * I have, yes. Now go to work! --JJLiu112 (talk) 07:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A file you had uploaded is deleted
Head's up -- a non-free file you had uploaded has been deleted. Please consider reading Fair Use policies. "Media from competing news organizations uploaded without permission can be deleted on sight." •–• 01:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Dublin article
.....check the talk page for a quick question re: a source used. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth...........
You are an AR around here and should be showing up on our lists as such. I may get to fixing that when I have a moment, or you are welcome to fix it.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The template
You might need to tweak a few things:

Accredited reporter

Arbitration Committee elections
Hello. I’m sure you’re already aware of it but can I invite you to vote in our ARBCOM elections? If I’m not wrong, you are eligible to vote because you have made more than a thousand edits as well as having a large number of published articles (250 and 5 being the minimum respectively). [24Cr][talk] 14:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Re RFP
I was thinking if you are free, maybe we can co-review the phillipines article, so I can see your review process and that will help with getting hands on. Let me know. I should be on IRC unless I have a power cut. •–• 06:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not today. I was looking forward to it, but I've a lot of work to do.  Should ease up soon. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: CLP article
Thanks for the comments on the article about the Country Liberal Party - just letting you know that, if you're available, I'm on IRC right now, so we can chat about it there if that works better for you. --LivelyRatification (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Back for good?...
I've seen that you've been editing here and there lately, and I'd like to ask if you're back for good. I know you took some time off from Wikinews, but I hope to see you around again. Henrymyman (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it so. I initially left due to beliefs the web site would be beyond resuscitation, but it seems that's no longer the case. Perhaps with some sustained activity I can complete the reviewer process sometime...this decade? --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Abandoned
Hello. Thank you for tagging draft articles with the "abandoned" tag. It is much appreciated. For future reference, please use the following code:

This has the effect of including a date, which helps the reviewing admin. Also, please don’t remove the "develop" and "tasks" tags. This is so people can see what might be needed to update the article and submit it for review. The two-day window for abandoned articles is to allow people a chance to rescue the article. Cheers. [24Cr][talk] 11:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Understood. JJLiu112 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much! --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Availability
I’ll be free for a couple of hours at about 2100 to 2300 UTC. If you’re free around this time, let me know and we can try a co-review. [24Cr][talk] 19:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 22:00 or thereabouts sounds good, thanks. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * May have to be pushed back half an hour. I’m really sorry. JJLiu112 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can’t do today. My sincerest apologies—I promise you this isn’t a sign of things to come, just a one-time thing. I’ll be available almost all this week…just really, really bad timing. JJLiu112 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. I’ll probably be free the same time tomorrow. [24Cr][talk] 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/JJLiu112 (2) and please confirm your acceptance. [24Cr][talk] 19:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Successful request for reviewer
I have given you the reviewer user right, entrusting you with the ability to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Please take a moment to read: You are welcome to use User Wikinews reviewer.
 * Flagged revisions
 * Reviewing articles
 * Tips on reviewing articles
 * Peer reviewed
 * Review
 * Reviewed article version
 * Flagged Revisions extension information, on MediaWiki

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews!

[24Cr][talk] 19:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Temporary change to article length
Hello. As a reviewer, this note is just to let you know we are implementing a trial from February 1 to April 30 to encourage more articles to be published per the outcome of a current proposal. The minimum requirements for article length will be one paragraph of at least a hundred words. At the end of the trial the requirements will return to normal (3 paragraphs etc) and there will be an evaluation discussion about the trial. Happy reviewing! [24Cr][talk] 23:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Israeli PM article
Sorry that went stale! Historically, you don't like to create branches/spin offs to re-freshen articles. I only gave it a cursory glance. Uncertain if there would even be enough extra chatter to branch into a new article, but at least try to save some of that stuff for another article down the road. I hate to see that level of work end up in the recycle bin!--Bddpaux (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No bother. JJLiu112 (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Reviews
Hello J.J., I wanted to thank you for your frequent and timely reviews of submitted articles as well as the great amount of attention to detail you put into them. You are truly a great asset to Wikinews. While I am indeed grateful, we seem to have some minor differences in opinion which I will list below. I am pinging so they can interject and say if anything I tell you here is incorrect or obsolete. (I go through periods of absence, so it's possible things change without me knowing.) Well, that's really it. You are doing a great job here. In today's review, however, you said "Why antiquated formatting?" and I do not know what you meant there. Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The WN:LEDE or opening paragraph . I have noticed that you seem to invariably change the opening paragraph to a single sentence. Policy specifies the lede should answer the 5Ws. Sometimes this is too much information for a single sentence and in most cases a paragraph ought not be a single sentence.
 * 2) Crediting images . In the past, it was implored upon me to begin crediting the author of images including a courtesy link to an appropriate page. This could be a Commons user page or even an external site such as  or anywhere someone chose to share their images under a free license. There is ample precedent for doing just that on Wikinews (Wikipedia doesn't do it). For an example, look at this edit.
 * 3) Renaming before publishing . When you rename an article prior to publishing, there's no reason to leave a redirect. In my opinion, it can only serve to clutter the situation. After publication is a different matter, since there are (believe it or not) sites who mirror Wikinews and/or reference us, so after we publish we should keep all prior names to avoid breaking their links back to Wikinews.
 * 4) Linking to past articles in text . I must admit, I am really unsure about this one. Yes, 'related news' serves the same function, but in some cases the alternative seems to be linking to a Wikipedia article. It's surely a habit I can easily break.


 * Thank you for your compliments. Recognise that I myself have only started editing in Dec 2020, and our periods of activity have almost entirely missed each other.
 * 1. I personally recognise a sizeable opening paragraph to be clunky and unnecessary, particularly as major news sources: BBC, NYT, CNN, Reuters, AP, France 24, the Independent without exception adopt this format. For me, if I can cut the opening paragraph to one sentence, and that means retaining much of the information except the 'how' and 'why', I would. I recognise this is a contentious decision but it's one of those decisions I've taken on initiative. For me, the opening paragraph can address the 'who', 'what' and 'when': the context comes later. But de jure, by all means make an opening paragraph five sentences as allowed in the Style Guide, or review articles that follow that custom.
 * 2. I shy away from external links in articles out of principle, and especially because I have anecdotally never seen anyone link to one in photo credits. Again, I wasn't around for 2019.
 * 3. Redirects are automatically generated when moving an article. I'm not an admin, I can't delete them. Trust me, I don't like seeing pre-pubs either.
 * 4. Again, personal style—and the alternative I'd argue wouldn't be a Wikipedia link, that'd fall under sister links.
 * 5. 'Antiquated formatting' refers to the use of JJLiu112 (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. as to number 3, you can just uncheck the box that says "Leave a redirect" ... you don't have to delete anything. I'm off to bed. Good night! SVTCobra 03:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha, I'm an idiot. Learn something everyday! Goodnight. JJLiu112 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Cars big winner as 34th Annual Annie Awards handed out
Ha! that brings back an old debate which never got resolved (in my opinion). It's a style guide issue. Well, I can debate it tomorrow or another day. I'm checking out now (sleep). --SVTCobra 07:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's been resolved? At least, the initial wikify request. Goodnight!
 * P.S., can't tick a 'leave a redirect' box. Odd. JJLiu112 (talk) 08:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, that must be a feature that is based on user rights. I thought it was available to all who could do a rename/move. SVTCobra 00:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Review
Do you have time to review Brooklyn subway shooting suspect arrested? You are already familiar with the facts and what needed to be improved. I'll take a look at Clash between Palestinians and Israeli forces leaves 152 injured. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I published renamed Clash between Palestinians and Israeli forces leaves at least 155 injured and turned down Brooklyn subway shooting suspect arrested, the latter of which was on its fourth day (overdue) of newsworthiness and still had issues I didn't even have to check with the sources.
 * PS. Separately, I want ask you if the fail here was only because the sources were out of order. If so, I don't like it. Just fix it and publish if that was the only problem. --SVTCobra 02:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm operating based off my past experience. I was told, I forget by whom, but nonetheless informed reviewers never touch the sources. I recognised it was daft, just as I believe requiring a standard mm/dd/yyyy is daft when we don't prejudice on Commonwealth vs American English, but I didn't press. In future I will fix sources myself, then. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with the 'daftness' of what was told to you. In my opinion we are so thin on reviewers that we probably ought not take the strictest approach, lest we want to strangle the project. If you are short on time, don't reject an article on minor thing to "clear the board", just don't review it. The worst that can happen is it goes stale. And if there is just one thing that needs to be fixed, please make that clear in you failing review. That way, when "that one thing" is fixed, I can comfortably publish without doing an in-depth review as I trust you have reviewed the other elements. I hope this makes sense to you. PS: I am also not set in the way of the date format (but that's for another day). Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JJLiu112 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

wn-reporters.org
Hi, just wanted to check, were you facing any troubles sending emails via wn-reporters? Seems like it was an error on my part, apologies for that. •–• 06:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Nope, thanks. JJLiu112 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * However, webmail seems to be misbehaving (while I try fixing, consider using a mail client (thunderbird, for example) if need be. I can share config details if you want.  Cheers. •–•  06:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

On my Absence
I profusely apologise for my protracted absence, and profoundly recognise the irony of being the 'solution' to a dearth of activity, particularly regarding the tireless work in my absence: all reviewers deserve the utmost commendation in this respect. Thank you. --JJLiu112 (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Re tesla
Great story, just minor question, last sentence "On May 13, Musk suspended a USD44 billion deal to acquire Twitter, citing the social media app's disclosure of its spam and fake accounts." I didn't understand it fully wihtout knowing the context, does it mean it's bad for the app to show "this account is spam/fake" or it's bad for spam or fake accounts to exist - if the latter then why do they exist - is it issue with moderation? Could you please clarify this either here or in the story or both. Thanks Gryllida (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, congratulations on becoming reviewer. This happened a few months earlier when I was not around. Most appreciate your dedication and commitment. Gryllida (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks so much. I'll clarify the statement. JJLiu112 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Expanded upon. JJLiu112 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks JJLiu112 Gryllida (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it accurate now though? The linked CNN Business report says `Two hours after his first tweet, Musk posted that he is "still committed to acquisition."`, suggesting that the deal was on hold only for two hours. Gryllida (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's been no subsequent news on the state of the offer. To public knowledge, the acquisition deal is presently on hold — Musk was simply confirming he's still committed to making a deal. Aka, "we'll do this, but later, pending info on this". Does this clear things up? JJLiu112 (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * See also probably. Gryllida (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

As expected, it's unfounded speculation by a tabloid mag. What I wrote above are the facts as it stands — if one desires to write on 'what next' for a stalled deal which even The Sun admits "has stalled for more than a month" they better have more than 'best guesses' to show. JJLiu112 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, a few more points.
 * I'd suggest to mention Electrek more prominently in the first paragraph. Looks like they are the primary source of the news about the communication between Mr Elon Musk and employees. It could be that Electrek is wrong. (cf. Attribution).
 * Even in headline I was tempted to write "Elon Musk reportedly emails Tesla employees return to office, or "assume you have resigned"", adding word 'reportedly' and replacing 'emails tell' with 'emails' as a verb. Sounds a bit awkward. I hope it illustrates the point that I'm trying to make.
 * -- Gryllida (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * CNN wrote Electrek was the first to publish the emails, which could indicate corroboration; Reuters outright confirmed them through two sources. Further, Musk appeared to confirm their legitimacy. All this indicates whilst Electrek are and deserve to be mentioned, they are by no means the sole source and cross-examination of this sort greatly favours their sincerity. In journalism, leaks often come from one source (for instance, the Daily Mirror's Pippa Crerar played an important role in exposing Partygate).
 * 'Emails' are a noun in this instance; Elon Musk emails (as in, emails attributed to Elon Musk) tell (the emails say) Tesla employees return to office, or "assume you have resigned". I find the headline is adequate in representing the focal event (that emails, attributed to Elon Musk, express the quoted sentiment).
 * Let me know if these address your concerns, JJLiu112 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I think that resolves it, thanks. Gryllida (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Thanks for your careful reading. JJLiu112 (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! The article currently says 'reasoning to withdraw' it reads a bit like he was going to cancel the deal entirely. At least that's how I read it (I am a foreigner, for me English is a second language, I think withdraw means to take back an application for example, so that it's no longer considered.) For clarity I'd probably suggest a 'reasoning to suspend the deal' or 'reasoning to postpone the deal' or something else that is more precise. Gryllida (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Resolved. JJLiu112 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks JJLiu112. It reads better now. Gryllida (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This vs. that
Honestly: I'm being lazy........but.....what is our policy re: when to insert Wikpedia hot links vs. when to insert Wikinews hot links? I have generally either mixed them up OR when I found a lack of WN links pertaining to that thing/word/topic, I just use a WP link instead. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are looking for WN:Style guide. Local links preferred. WP where unavoidable. Try using the W template because if there is a local link, it will automatically link to that first. [24Cr][talk] 20:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As said. That being said, often ignored (which makes sense, given the general tendency to disregard the Style Guide) is the phrase to "not over-wikify articles". For me, that means the sentence that would appear in a regular news source as: "US President Joe Biden..." should be changed to "United States President Joe Biden..." and not "President of the United States Joe Biden" or "President of the United States Joe Biden". JJLiu112 (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Makes sense all the way around. I like it!--Bddpaux (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

United States stock market enters bear territory
Hi, I have ignored the Wikinews Style guide which says "The first paragraph (known as the lede) should summarize the article with at least 100 words, using four or five sentences" and made the lede paragraph of United States stock market enters bear territory one sentence long per your request. Just to let you know. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I also complied with the rest of your requests, with one small exception: I cannot provide the closing level of the Dow because it is not included in the two original sources  (the closing of the S&P has been added) . Should I add another source just to provident his little tidbit of information? I hope another review will follow soon, since this is the sort of brief that should be published timely,  if it is  to be published at all. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As it stands the article cannot be published for reasons stated in the original review. It is unsubstantial in scope, it does not have proper formatting, capitalisation & punctuation, and so forth. Please read past articles for further guidance on the matter and conduct serious and broad proofreading prior to submitting for review. JJLiu112 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that this article will not be published on Wikinews, no matter how much work I put into it? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reviewers have the role of ensuring articles meet certain criteria. At present, the stock market piece does not. I'm sure you can also ask advice from another reviewer, who could tell you what changes are needed. But you will understand the desire for articles published on Wikinews to have consistent capitalisation, follow the same date format for the sources and include commas where they should be. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, consistency is important, I agree. So why did you make this comment refusing to help another article author saying:Whilst the style issues are amenable, I could not do them myself without being considered a co-author, while here you made 12 out of the 14 edits and then went on to approve the article? What was different about the second case that allowed you to ignore your own advice? Ottawahitech (talk) 05:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be accusatory. You will notice how most of my changes on the second article linked were not as substantial as those needed to be done to the first. Let's go line by line.
 * Edit 1: Changed the caption.
 * Edit 2: Removed 'credit'.
 * Edit 3: Fixed image citation.
 * Edit 4: Clarified Edit 3.
 * Edit 5: Took the existing article, which was substantial, well-written and overall decent. Reworded certain segments.
 * Edit 6: Added categories.
 * Edit 7: &c
 * Edit 8: Removed one word.
 * Edit 9: Replaced five words.
 * Edit 10: Published.
 * Edit 11: Moved page.
 * Whereas for the Boris article it would go:
 * 1. Remove wikitext.
 * 2. Boris Johnson should not be a sister link.
 * 3. Fix caption.
 * 4. Substitute external for internal links.
 * 5. Replace 'British' with 'United Kingdom' and link internally.
 * 6. Backbenchers should not be wikilinked.
 * 7. "an amount large enough to start the vote" is redundant and should be replaced.
 * 8. Third paragraph should be reworded.
 * 9. Clarified and expounded upon paragraph 6.
 * & so forth. JJLiu112 (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The request was per recent articles which have followed the custom. JJLiu112 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are saying: should the Style Guide be followed or not? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At the moment, most of our recently-published articles have one-sentence ledes that adequately but succinctly summarise the focal event. For matters like a consistent date format &c, please follow the Style Guide. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You instructed me to ignore the Style Guide and reduce the number of sentences in the lede from four to one. I did what you asked me to.
 * As far as using consistent dates, I agree that date formats should be consistent, but that means using "June 14, 2022" (automatically provided by Wikinews) and not "2022-06-13" which you specifically requested I do in Review of revision 4680359 [Not ready] (see point 2).
 * Can you see how confusing your instructions are? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

That's correct, you did. That's why I focused on other issues: see above. I cited a dd-mm-yyyy date format as what not to use. Notice how in: "1. Your lede paragraph is multiple sentences long. It does not include the focal event (Who, what, where, when etc) in the first sentence" the bold is something to change. In "2. No citation for the image", that is something to change. Therefore, when I wrote "using dd-mm-yyyy date format", that was to be taken as something to change. Hope this helps. I'm saying this calmly—if you genuinely feel my words aren't helping, please contact another reviewer. They're all very capable people I'm sure are willing to help. JJLiu112 (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Temporary change to freshness
Hello. As a reviewer, this note is just to let you know we are implementing a trial from July 4 to October 4 to enable more articles to be reviewed per the outcome of a current proposal. The freshness window is being extended to about five to seven days. At the end of the trial the window will continue to be at 5-7 days while we discuss whether to adopt the change permanently or not. Happy reviewing! [24Cr][talk] 17:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Dead serious....
Not being horsey and the wiki-text thing? Guilty, for sure. I really need to wake up on that a bit more. I just tend to sink into the writing some time. However, the general zeitgeist here is (presumably): You: 'There are many words available, so write many words.' Me: 'Few words are required, so I have the energy right now to submit pretty much that.' I am ALWAYS OK (whatever my so-called 'rank' might be with these projects) with: 'Your words are lacking. Write better words.' Your additions (although MUCH MORE than would've remotely been allowed by a reviewer in the old days 'round here) were divine. But I haven't the faintest qualm with: 'Back up. Tighten up. Try again.'--Bddpaux (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Paul, I’m trying to get an article published after nearly a month of inactivity. The Fields Medal article needed similar changes, but after lounging in the ‘disputed’ queue I believe I’m the only active reviewer right now. Thanks for your cooperation a lot, I mean it. Hope it wasn’t too harsh & your contributions, as well as all you’ve done for me in the past year & a half, are appreciated. JJLiu112 (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all cool. I honestly HATE to see that Fields Medal article wither on the vine, I really do. You skirted AWFULLY close to being a contributor on that one, too. I will try to jump back in on reviewing a bit more around here.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, my point is that I am was a contributor because of how much I changed. Please review it, is what I'm asking. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Email???
Any idea as to what is going on with wikinewsie email? I cannot send emails from my account there.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Soliciting your opinion
This user User:Amgine/Reboot (it seems to me, at least) is trying to set up a little sub-universe for their articles. Their presence here (in the past, at least) appears to've been problematic and disruptive. Any thoughts on your end?--Bddpaux (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Paul, you must forgive me. I've been away because of school and work and honestly I deeply regret my inactivity, particularly with regards to the Judith Durham article (MASSIVE SEEKERS FAN!) I'll see Amgine's articles now, but I advise you use your best judgement, which has proved sound thus far. JJLiu112 (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Cursory review. Very sneaky. Recommend taking action against a user who has a history of vandalism & seems to be using Wikinews as a personal host, which DIRECTLY violates Wikipedia:Ownership of content (Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit. Nevertheless, they are not personal homepages, and are not owned by the user.) To submit articles without pre-pub approval, and have them appear WITH TEMPLATES AND CATEGORIES makes them 'condoned' by Wikinews without adequate review. Take down and ban. JJLiu112 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, very much agree. Funny thing: I deeply believe this user could be an excellent contributor, but Xe has some pie-in-the-sky views of how things 'used to me'. I have been here FAR OVER A DECADE, and I don't remember this little candy circus xe speaks of with articles being published by the pile per-day. Plus: I have all manner of goofiness in my Sandboxes, but make it clear: 'This is not a published article.' I mostly use that stuff to remind me of how to do fancy wiki-markup stuff at a later date...'cause a guy can forget stuff. Any-hoo: hang in there, man! Life can get busy. I feel you!--Bddpaux (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Amgine may be looking back at the past with rose-colored glasses, but publishing 10 to 20 articles a day was quite common in 2005 and 2006. I don't think it is "sneaky" as it was mentioned on the Water cooler. As far as I can tell, the articles do not appear in categories. SVTCobra 19:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey,
 * 2005-06 are beyond my time, so no comment. Re Amgine perhaps "sneaky" was the wrong word — more odd the intent seems to be posting faux articles rather than contributing. User:Cartman02au/Reboot/Australia: Pranksters report New South Wales Health Minister as COVID-19-postive was categorised before I removed it, User:Amgine/Reboot/TransAlta Renewables shares climb still has the categories Economy and business and Stock market and I'm not sure why. JJLiu112 (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That had to do with the way Stock market was set up. I fixed it. We generally don't let the templates put articles in particular categories. Cheers, SVTCobra 00:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Category:Wackynews
This category has been debated several times (though obviously not on its talk page, and I can't recall where the discussions were). It has been argued that it is too subjective as not everyone shares the same view of what is "wacky". At its worst, it can be seen to be derisive or mocking of the subjects of an article. The arguments put forth to me were convincing enough that we ought stop using it. It was kept, however, because it does have a lot of historical articles and even sub-categories. Cheers, -- SVTCobra 00:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Tagging abandoned
When you tag articles abandoned please include the current date as the first parameter. This is most easily accomplished by using subst:aband which automatically adds the date. Cheers, SVTCobra 13:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Error on your user page
Heads up that your user page has a little  for accreditation details and it includes a broken   link for your wn-reporters.org email address. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You're back!
Good to see you again! Heavy Water (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"
Hi > Said Haines: "Essentially, we just had to put together a case to demonstrate that there was a larger playing group out there, that's of a higher quality player, that we could essentially tap into. https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Brothers_Sunshine_Coast_to_join_A_grade_rugby_union_competition_on_Australia%27s_Sunshine_Coast

Missing the end of quotation marks ("). Nigirii (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * https://wmich.edu/writing/punctuation/quotationmarks JJLiu112 (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A micro quagmire
I haven't really the energy to do a deep dive on policy today, but I am certainly familiar with a healthy measure of it in terms of COI and Newsworthiness; the article you published on the Russian dude... honestly, point me in the right direction here AND I get it... we've loosened the reigns here a bit and I'm not entirely unhappy about that, but: This is, to put it politely, an upside down QUAGMIRE of issues potentially at play. Russian WN published an article (that is most of the lede itself) -- an article I am 92% he wrote about a book HE wrote and published on Wikibooks. Then, he gave a talk to roughly NOT EVEN a dozen people about the book then comes here to publish a self-congratulatory photo essay about him giving said talk and we publish THAT as a news article? This is stretching credibility here in a way that could be construed as DEEPLY problematic. I would be darned willing to give the guy SEVERAL inches of leeway if he was busy publishing lots of stuff here, that didn't feature 18 photos of his face. Dead serious: Can you see where I'm coming from here? I've been super busy. If I've missed a few beats, let me know. Bddpaux (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey Paul, this isn't the first of Viktor's articles I've reviewed, and yes, he was the creator of the lot, however I merited their inclusion nevertheless because they were approved on Russian Wikinews; they were edited (by myself and others) to remove any overzealous fluffery; they are, to any degree, original reporting. I am not blind to COI issues, and rest assured I'm not in the pockets of some Russian bloke who got dengue fever and took photos of ladies in the nude, but after careful editing they were, in my view, neutral, original coverage already approved on a sister site of a local community going-on, and we certainly have plenty of those of similar newsworthiness (Australian Manns Mitre 10 hardware store closes after rent dispute; California class commemorates Holocaust). JJLiu112 (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I 98% agree with 97% of what you've said here. However, we can EASILY fall into a horrible state of Whataboutism in instances like this. Note: the examples you shared are quite old AND I am horribly uncomfortable with 'that other language thought it was cool, and we should too'. In a manner of speaking, each language stands alone as it's own project on WN. [Admittedly, I am skirting awfully close to some opinion-based statements here.] Frankly: no major harm done here. Additionally: I think we need to take a good, hard look at our COI and Newsworthiness policies and guidance here. We (I think, at least) are LONG overdue for a re-fresh in that regard. Pi Zero was a MAJOR supporter of maintaining high quality output here and we can only be so charitable when someone gets their feeling hurt because their article about their favorite pet store closing down was rejected due to lack of newsworthiness. My guide has ALWAYS BEEN: Are you trying to contribute to this journalistic project or are you trying to write words that gratify you? All-in-all: Thanks for giving us free labor here.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I do intend to maintain some shred of integrity and thanks for your good work whilst I'm away. Re "the examples you shared are quite old" nevertheless, they are precedent. JJLiu112 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Writing contest 2023
Hello. We've created Writing contest 2023, which will start on February 1 and end on May 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 and 2013 contests. As a reviewer and accredited reporter, it would be a great time for you. If you are interested in signing up, please do so at Writing contest 2023 and create a category for the articles you submit. Heavy Water (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you. JJLiu112 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Review
Hi, I know this is odd for disturbing you on this time, but I might get upset now. My France protest article is still pending. If can review it, taking your time but make a bit haste as two articles I created got stale for outdated news. I don't want to get this also stale so please kindly if you review this. DRC-B5 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Have patience. It's been one day. JJLiu112 (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"Xi's Moment"
Greetings and sorry for disturbing you. I have noticed by the comments you have left in the article "Earthquake strikes Aksu Prefecture, Xinjiang Region, China; no casualties reported". The fact is that we can hardly find newspapers and volumes issued by organizations from mainland China without any columns regarding China's present president, whether they are state-affiliated or not. This can be taken as a latent rule among media in mainland China. However, most news concerning China are basically published by these magazines and newspapers. A Chinese ID (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I recognise that, which is why I published it anyway. Nevertheless, I would prefer in future we have two independent sources. JJLiu112 (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I'll attach additional importance to sources later on. A Chinese ID (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Authorities recover lost radioactive capsule in Western Australia
Could you please re-review? Gryllida (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Re: Canadian soldier who filmed himself sexually abusing colleague has appeal dismissed
Hey, do you think you'll have time to review this one? It'll go stale on Saturday. If you won't, I can pick it up this week, but I thought I'd ask since you started reviewing and you have the Law360 subscription. Heavy Water (talk) 03:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I’ll review sometime this week. Thanks! JJLiu112 (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll review tonight. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

GSK rejects three Unilever bids to buy consumer healthcare arm, says unit was "fundamentally undervalued"
Congratulations on having your article become featured! —chaetodipus (talk &middot; contribs) 07:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! JJLiu112 (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Experts call for new security paradigm to address human factor
Hello JJLiu112,

I wanted to follow up on the news article I submitted earlier and thank you for your helpful feedback. I have taken your comments and made the necessary revisions to the article.

Regarding newsworthiness, I have included additional information to demonstrate the significance of the event, and I have also included two additional English-speaking sources to meet requirements. In terms of style, I have edited the article to provide more concise and clear information about the decision made during the event.

I would greatly appreciate it if you could review the revised article and let me know if it is now suitable for publication on Wikinews. Thank you for your time and consideration. Luxury Muxury (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

United States ends Title 42
Why don't they decide and delete it if there is no way to save it, even this article has a Wikipedia page--Jusaset (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * What? JJLiu112 (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

More than 290 dead and almost a thousand injured in a triple railway collision in India
Why so many obstacles to publish this news More than 290 dead and almost a thousand injured in a triple railway collision in India when only yesterday it accumulated more than 290 deaths and a thousand injuries in India, placing it as the deadliest accident in India in 2023.--Jusaset (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s not the subject that’s the problem, it’s the article itself. Please stay patient and recognise that if the article was well-written from the start, reviewers wouldn’t have to take any time to approve and publish it. JJLiu112 (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Scoop??
Are you checking 'Scoop' these days? And, if so: how? I am trying to work on a new 'official' email set-up situation for us.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Following up on this. Our email situation is jankety right now. I need a password reset. —Bddpaux (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I have never accessed scoop. I don’t believe I have permissions. I haven’t been able to access my WN email, either, though I really haven’t had time to reset either. Unfortunately life has made it very difficult to work on Wikinews right now, so please excuse the late reply. -Madeleine 47.189.18.157 (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Madeline, are you even able to log in? You've posted a few times from an IP. Cheers, SVTCobra 03:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, lol. I’ve been away from my computer and my phone automatically logs me out every so often. I promise I can use technology :p JJLiu112 (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to get something straightened out here re: our reporter email/scoop email. Acagastaya was sort of the ad hoc overseer of that/our journalist workspace, but he seems to have gone missing in recent weeks. I am going to give him a bit more time, and we may have to shoot off in a different direction soon. He has not been responsive to email either. We have to try to maintain some degree of infrastructure around here. I am willing to spend some money to help us set up a skeleton situation in that regard, but I am not wealthy, so... y'know. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm really not technical with this sort of thing. Perhaps the people who run the social medias could help? JJLiu112 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Till that's settled, our 'skeleton system' per se might be a temporary suspension of interviews purely in the interest of safety for those being interviewed, and it being passed along through non-Wikinews hosted platforms like Google or so on. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a reach. We do have interviews published without scoop. They can be documented for the reviewer without Scoop. Of course, the possibility of an interview with a subject in a precarious situation may require use of off-wiki facilities such as Scoop mail. There is no reason to issue an overall moratorium or suspension of interviews. Cheers, SVTCobra 02:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just bouncing ideas off. I will ultimately support whatever decision is reached. JJLiu112 (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

submersible titan
Hello, why don't you believe the article about the Titan submersible that has been missing for 3 days and has 5 occupants. --190.219.223.137 (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Why are you posting here and why do you say Wikinews doesn't believe the story? Wikinews doesn't have an article about it because you didn't write it. Now, please don't post other messages like this on individual Wikinews editors talk pages. Thanks, SVTCobra 02:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI
You may be interested in commenting/voting on this AR, the FAC for Sydney, Australia woman who "spontaneously" murdered boyfriend in "fatal explosion of emotion" sentenced, and this proposal I made on WN:TIME. Heavy Water (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Also ArbCom nominations are open through 20:00 UTC July 17, if you want to nominate people (I can't because I volunteered for the election committee). Heavy Water (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a lot. Noted. IDK much about ArbCom, I'll trust you guys on that. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

social media (cross-posted to all members of reviewer group)
Hi, Water_cooler/miscellaneous may be of interest to you as a reviewer, thanks and regards, Gryllida (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a review
Hello @JJLiu112, I saw that you are one of the most recently added reviewers (despite 2018 being six years ago). I was wondering if you could review my first article, World Athletics Indoor Championships concludes in Glasgow with new world records and significant wins. I would really appreciate it, because it would be discouraging if it went stale and got deleted due to simply not getting a full review. Thank you, --Habst (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)