Обсуждение:Английские Викиновости

Казуз с удалением статьи про вашингтонское побоище

Ещё находка: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gF-oZzWd690J:https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:US_Congress_accepts_electoral_college_results_after_riot_suppressed_on_Capitol_grounds+

Страница пуста, а ведь я её создавал. Судя по пометке внизу кэшированной версии, затёр мой коммент Pi_zero. Охренеть, какой занятой своим проектом человек. Жаль, что я не заглянул туда, пока страница была жива. Incnis Mrsi (обсуждение) 11:50, 23 января 2021 (UTC)

Извините, я лажанулся. На странице из кэша контент почему-то был скрыт виджетом с надписью «read as wiki page», при тюкании на который содержимое и открылось. Кажется, я стал параноиком и ожидаю удар от людей, не сделавших мне ничего плохого. Сохраню тут, чтоб не пропало. Incnis Mrsi (обсуждение) 19:41, 23 января 2021 (UTC)

  

What are you waiting for? There is a new, there are sources, publish it indeed. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Reviewers are volunteers too. --Pi zero (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh. The article hasn't been submitted for review. --Pi zero (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Incnis Mrsi, Pi zero: I did not submit the article for review due to the immense number of conflicting reports. Plus I had to step away from this story as it infuriated me so much that NPOV could not be maintained. Should I have put it as Breaking News, yeah I could have but I don't think the information was solid enough even for moment by moment. Even I am a volunteer so writing articles are on my own time too. AZOperator (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I recall, at the time of the Scottish independence referendum, brianmc declined to write about it on COI grounds. In theory, we should be able to write neutrally about anything; but everyone has a limit, and we all hope to recognize our own. --Pi zero (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Well put, but the content has wandered away from just the conflict. I feel this like like 9-11, I know what I felt before, during, and after. Now I am getting those same feelings of before, during, and after. This will not end on the 20th, sadly. We will be dealing with this for months and years. AZOperator (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, school kids'll be learning about this a century from now, supposing there are school kids a century from now. Of course, they'll know a lot about what happened next that we don't know yet. --Pi zero (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

disclosure

For the purposes of this article, 108.31.218.63 and 108.31.207.214 are the same person. 108.31.218.63 (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4599988 [Not ready]

Revision 4599988 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The death toll has increased since this was written. The event feels pretty marginal in freshness at this point; we're in the discretionary period, two-to-three days after the event, when taking the feel into account should be considered ordinary. (It might have felt on more solid ground freshness-wise if we'd managed to review it very shortly after submission; alas.) There's an uncomfortable splitting of focal event here. Is the focus the vote, or the riot? The riot story has developments that by this time are getting quite complicated and fragmented, leading one to figure it's really no longer fresh. The headline names both, but the lede doesn't mention the riot; the headline, the lede, and the body should all three agree about what the focus is. The lede is on the long side and likely more detailed than it ought to be. The bit about "[taking] on special significance" is analysis, which we avoid as part of our neutrality policy. The part about DoD activating national guard, I'd want to examine quite closely on a full review; it may be accurate, and if so may be acceptable, though I gather there was actually some quite questionable stuff going on there where the national guard was ready to provide aid but couldn't because the Trump administration people wouldn't given them permission to enter DC. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.