User talk:Ssr

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Adambro 20:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Putin backs Medvedev as United Russia party's candidate
Thank you for this article. We hope to see more contributions from you in the future. --SVTCobra 16:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for helping me with the formatting. I will try my best in the future as I get used to the guidelines. --Ssr 16:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome II
Since you are becoming active round here again, I thought I'd drop you a copy of the modern welcome message. Should have links to all the key stuff:

Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! --Ssr (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Blackout article
I assessed the article not-ready in its current form. The blackout is really a fascinating development. See my review comments on the article talk page. (And with that, I really have to get to bed; it's the wee hours of the morning where I am.) --Pi zero (talk) 07:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll address the issues in a short time, so hopefully someone else can review. --Ssr (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to go over this for review, but I'm not all that confident/happy with using Google Translate on Russian-language reportage. Have you seen any other English-language sources which back up the majority of points in the now-much-improved article?
 * I may come back on translated quotes, as I've done for other articles I'll look at how Google Translate works on the original, and ask the translator; this frequently pulls up more appropriate synonyms or turns of phrase. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Currently, there are lots of English sources, for your choice: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Russian+Wikipedia There is also a Russia Today English language source within the article. --Ssr (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, noticed the RT source, it's a matter of maintaining submitter/reviewer independence that had me suggesting you select whichever you feel most-comprehensively covers the salient points of the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have earlier listed some of the major sources at Facebook (tell me if you can't view the page, I'll list them here). --Ssr (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As for LiveJournal statement, I see their text in English as I have LiveJournal English interface. If you see Russian, http://livejournal.livejournal.com/19317.html?uselang=en could help, but it doesn't seem to be working now. However, I see English text through this link. --Ssr (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I've probably done enough to disqualify myself from review on this. And, I need you to re-check the quoted statement very carefully. Some of it was pretty poor (English) grammar, and I'm sure the Russian grammar is just fine; so it's a matter of verifying it is near-exact in the meaning with my edits (oh, the perils of translation). I'm going to look for a prettier quote template, and look for someone in IRC to double check and publish. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Livejournal, I see Russian title, English text (more useful). --Brian McNeil / talk 14:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't realise, it's the edits to the ru.wikimedia statement I'm worried about the accuracy of. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have checked the quoted statement and see no troubles with it as there are only minor corrections. Thank you very much for the work! --Ssr (talk) 15:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Renaming. WOuld you take offence as a Russian if I renamed it Comrade, 'Imagine a world without free knowledge'? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, titles with some word-play get more readers, so any other suggestions welcome which hint at a Russian connection. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Go rename, I trust your Wikinews experience =) --Ssr (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

It's top of the main page. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Kremlin aims to create universal wiki-based history schoolbook
The article needs present its information in a different order; I believe that needs to be cleared up before a reviewer can try to check other things about the article. See my review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * After frustrating delays, I made a concerted effort this afternoon (my time, UTC-5) to do a full review of the article, and ran up against sourcing and language-barrier problems. Honestly, if I were able to cope with a pile of Russian sources unaided, I'd have simply pulled in the sources from the Russian version of the article.  The difficulty of reviewing from non-English sources is something that's been frustrating to us for as along as I've been on English Wikinews.  I've written fairly extensive review comments about the combination of difficulties now facing the article.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have answered at collaboration page. --Ssr (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

== Russian Wikipedian and marathon runner Dmitry Erokhin makes test run to Morocco before running along entire Sakhalin Island ==

Hello Ssr. Regarding your recent submission of the exclusive interview with Dmitry Erokhin, I hope you have the notes/ audio or video recording of the interview emailed to scoop@wikinewsie.org. You can also add it to the talk page of the article. Besides, there are some words, which challanges our neutral point of view policy. I will see if I can edit the article in a couple of hours. By the way, did you translate the interview from Russian to English using a translation tool like Google Translator? And,will it be possible to provide the original Russian question and answers as well? (We have a translated quote template which we use in these situations). acagastya 16:17, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello and thank you for the answer! The interview was made directly within Russian Wikinews by text, so no audio or video was made. The link to the original is provided within the article via Interwiki link: ru:Википедист-марафонец Дмитрий Ерохин перед забегом через весь Сахалин отправляется разминаться в Марокко. It was not translated automatically, it was translated from Russian by w:en:user:Mark Ekimov by request of Dmitry Erokhin and was originally placed here. Dmitry Erokhin is available for additional questions, e. g. in Facebook. He is moving from Moscow to Milano tomorrow and he says he plans to answer more questions and post some ofhis updates to Wikimedia projects such as Commons. You and any other users are encouraged to ask additional questions to add to the text if you like. --Ssr (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So, the questions were asked via Facebook messages? I do not know what is the procedure, may be a screenshot (but then, it can be called as invasion of privacy, but we need to verify it) acagastya 17:38, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the questions were asked via Russian Wikinews editor interface. Dmitry was answering directly there in Russian. The history of the dialogue can be viewed at history page of the original Russian Wikinews article. Dmitry was authorised with his Wikimedia SUL account and can confirm his identity personally by request if needed. --Ssr (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I see several possible concerns here. The first item I'm listing here is clearly the biggest obstacle. (By, this has come up on a day when there are a bunch of other articles competing for review attention.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The opening of the article needs to make clear, for a general reading audience, why this story has news relevance. This needs to be worked on; perhaps there is a solution, a way to present it so that it does feel like news to a general audience, but this needs to be found.  If it comes across feeling like an item for a Wikimedian newsletter, that's a problem (the relevant passage, which I recall deeply frustrated you back in 2014, is WN:Newsworthiness).
 * Information on how the interview was conducted and how and where to verify it should be on the article talk page. That's why the interview template at the bottom of the article says "See the collaboration page for more details."
 * There should be no external links in the body of an article; wikilinks only.
 * Does an exclusive interview for Wikinews have neccessarily to be news-relevant? I thought it is a matter of finding a subject that agrees to talk to Wikinews regardless of current news. --Ssr (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As for Murphy, no need for rush, it is a long-term Wiki Expedition. --Ssr (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we have a pretty wide range of coverage. We have plenty of latitude to cover news stories that the mainstream media (msm) have failed to cover properly (in fact, additional coverage to under-covered stories is something we're well suited for).  We also allow "local" coverage, with the particular caveat that we need to be cautious of being perceived as a wikimedian newsletter (hence the "Wikimedia exception").  There isn't some stodgy requirement here about relating to a story that's currently in the big msm outlets (akin to Wikipedia's "notability").  But, take a couple of ridiculously extreme examples.  On the high end, suppose we landed an interview with Hillary Clinton; this is not completely off the wall, as a former Wikinewsie who has kept in touch over the years did land an interview with Hillary Clinton last year (not for Wikinews; an interview for a commercial magazine).  It's hard to imagine failing to ask her questions whose answers would satisfy relevance.  On the low end, suppose someone went out on the streets, found a random person who would talk to them, and asked this person questions about their general eating habits, then submitted the result to us as an interview.  The general eating habits of a semi-random person-on-the-street (only semi-random because it had to be someone who would agree to be interviewed) are almost certainly not relevant, in a news sense.  Between these two extremes, some judgement is needed &mdash; which is why it took us years of practice and occasional community discussions before we were ready to write a nontrivial explanation of our newsworthiness criteria. What is needed here is to present the story as of interest to a general audience (not just a wikimedian audience), as best the story supports this sort of presentation.  I don't have a sense of how well that can be done; I simply don't know how good a case can be made for the relevance of the story.  Perhaps, once we can see what is the best case that can be made for its relevance, it will be clear &mdash; one way or the other &mdash; whether or not it is relevant.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hillary Clinton is not so much impressive, but it's impressive that a Wikinewsie talked to her. But we have our own Wikinewsie who talked to Hillary Cliton, his name is User:Frhdkazan, one can look at this photo, where he stands next to the right to Hillary Clinton. --Ssr (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * External links ban is a flaw as it would be in Wikipedia. No, I won't go into a policy discussion, just my opinion. --Ssr (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * External links are not banned altogether; sorry if that wasn't clear. They go in a separate section called External links, located below the Sources section (WN:SG).  All sister projects afaik, including Wikipedias, dislike putting external links in the main text, preferring to set external links apart so that the reader is well-warned before clicking them that they lead out of the wikimedia sisterhood.  --Pi zero (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please see my review comments.  Besides my frustration that I didn't get to the article sooner, I'm also not sure I've explained clearly what is needed.  Please feel free to ask me questions; I will do my best to clarify.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I feel this time the text is not going to be improved. It was started to be promoted out of Russian variant too early and with too little people involved in the process. But please be aware there will be further efforts to promote Wikimedia movement worldwide in such ways. Dmitry Erokhin has wide plans and also has notable experience. His expeditions are dedicated to Wikimedia, he collects material for Wikipedia and tries to use all posible instruments in all possible languages, and Wikinews are among these instruments. But next time I will try to have more backing from other people so I'm not in just solo negotiations on the affair I'm not generally solo responsible for. --Ssr (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

When original reporting ceases development without being published, we often move it to the reporter's userspace instead of deleting it. I've done so with this article; it is now at
 * User:Ssr/Russian Wikipedian and marathon runner Dmitry Erokhin makes test run to Morocco before running along entire Sakhalin Island

I felt at the time that this might have been put into a workable form for English Wikinews publication if it had gotten attention from someone with lots of (1) facility with en.wn newsworthiness standards, (2) proficiency in English, and (3) familiarity with the story &mdash; so they'd know what to say about the story to make it acceptable. I can see it might be difficult to get one person with lots of all three of these things at once. --Pi zero (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So good texts/contributions are no more deleted forever. Thanks for the advice, next time I will show this information to other people such as Dmitry Erokhin and his companions from Wikimedia RU. This year he plans more runs: hard and lengthy Sakhalin one and at least one in some mountains. All dedicated to Wikipedia with promoting it among his readers/followers and press. Wikinews coverage is expected in all possible ways, as I said before. --Ssr (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is how we have always operated. OR is typically preserved; synthesis is usually not kept unless it achieves publication.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Timing etc
Hi Ssr

I agree with you that at the current stage the review takes enormous amounts of time even for legitimate submissions.

Does complaining help? Doesn't it drive authors away?

To my knowledge, we have several solutions in mind:
 * Engage more people in sharing immediate feedback when a draft is created, so that its first review-that-is-done-a-day-or-two-later is more likely to be successful. (User:Gryllida/welcome a bit, started early this year).
 * This may also lead to recruitment of more reviewers, as people who provide such feedback can be more likely to be able to accomplish fact check.
 * Guide users by an adequate wizard (Help:Dialog, started by Pi zero several years ago).

I see that as constructive steps forward. What have you got in your mind, and what is your motivation here?

--Gryllida (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for delay in replying and thank you for your comment. Complaining helps what? I see how authors are driven away by talks on stories about Tyumen and Notre-Dame. They, judging by these cases, seem to be disappointed with complexity of how things are done here. As for my motivation, first of all I wish to post here some original content, primarily about Wikimedia and Wikipedians (this is WIKI-NEWS). I have no great desire to duplicate regular news for which there are loads of professional news websites available (this is WIKI-NEWS). In the past I have posted some here, but from some moment I began to be kicked from here with this type of stories (in some cases, by lingering review and then deleting). I see how some other people suffer the same. Speaking on desired manner of governance, I can say that I support the current general policies of Russian Wikinews (which I also influenced), so it's easy to see the specimen. --Ssr (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to help you write news about Wikimedia and Wikipedia in a bias-free way. They would also need to affect many people (internal newsletter style reports may face criticism from the reviewers here; ref. relevance). If you create a draft, or just link me to sources, I would be glad to quickly share with you my thoughts. Gryllida (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * *Everything* "may face criticism from the reviewers here". *Nothing* would be declared to be "in a bias-free way". I tried for years, I know. Thanks to Farhad, we are know the method of placing our English versions at Meta, and don't very much concerned of dealing with en-wn (which is anyway extremely hard to handle and energy-unworthy). --Ssr (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to see where you guys are putting your English versions. Do you have a link? Gryllida (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a number now and more coming. It's like this: ru:Казанская вики-школа отчиталась о подготовке татароязычной интеллигенции XXI века—multilingual links at the top. --Ssr (talk) 07:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)