User talk:Pi zero

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
I watch talk pages where I have recently left messages. Please reply in the same section to make discussion easier to follow.
If you leave a message on this page, I'll reply to it here.

The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter — 'tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.
Samuel Clemens

Archive
2008–2010
Jan–May 2011
Jun–Dec 2011
Jan–Jun  2012
Jul –Dec 2012
Jan–Jul   2013
Aug–Nov 2013 
Dec 2013–Aug 2014          
Sep 2014–       2015          



Adam Johnson[edit]

Not the most important story in the world, granted, but why put it at lead #5 when lead #1 has been in that slot since 19th February and the world has long since lost interest in what the Telegraph may or may not have done to keep HSBC happy? Bencherlite (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It didn't feel like Lead 1 material. If I'd chosen to replace Lead 1 I'd have replaced it with one of the other leads, and the relative weighting of date and importance would be messy; so I decided to just let that decision wait will the next publication, at which time the current Lead 1 will be due to go away entirely so that one way or another such a decision gets made. --Pi zero (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Not that I care particularly about the issue, but I don't think you can be that fussy about what is, and what isn't, lead 1 material given the lack of new material to choose from. Bencherlite (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a matter of priorities. It's been clear before you and I don't altogether agree about the function of leads when output gets slow. I'd like to have a significant story as Lead 1; if it's a recent one, that's clearly desirable, but I'm not inclined to go out of my way to put a less "big" story there — and it would have required going out of one's way in this case to put another story there, because the oldest story was the one in the number five slot. I'd have had to do a bunch of rearranging if I was to keep the five most recent stories as leads and put a different one in the number one spot. --Pi zero (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Article re-name[edit]

Hi,

I have a question/favor to ask of you. Going back to 2009/2010 I have had two articles published that have incorrect/"fancy" punctuation causing it to be recorded separately to other articles. Is it possible to amend the titles, purely to the correct punctuation marks and no other amendments. If so I can link you the articles and you can see for yourself. If this is not possible then I shall just have to bare this annoying cross.

Thank you as always. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Chandlerjoeyross:
Punctuation correction (in the article body) that doesn't change the meaning is fixable within the archive policy; and, although we don't like to change the headline even in tiny ways if we can possibly avoid it while the article is still being pushed elsewhere (may cause double entries on some feeds), that doesn't apply after the article is fully protected.
So I reckon we can probably fix these headlines that are bothering you. --Pi zero (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
@@Pi zero:
Great.. Thank you, the articles in question are ‘Twin Towers’ warship set to enter New York and “Dr Death” Steve Williams, American professional wrestler, dies aged 49. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (talk) 13:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Reviewer Permissions[edit]

I have just had a chance to read your recent comment sand change of stance regarding my nomination for reviewer permissions. I fully accept and agree with your comments and feel it is right. I am happy to work on my article writing and lead the charge in that regard. I am also happy to "Pre-Review" as such.. Making sure infoboxes and wiki links work ect.. Thank you for what you do for Wikinews, it would appear that without people like yourself and Brain McNeil this site may have died. If I can help in anyway please let me know. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Chandlerjoeyross. Wikinews needs writers, as well as reviewers; of course we need review labor, no secret that we're short of it, but while we sometimes get overwhelmed with more submissions on the review queue than we can handle (like this past weekend), lately we've also been having some long dry spells where nothing viable is submitted. What review capacity we do have available goes unsed if there's nothing to review. And yes, "pre-review" stuff like that can help with student articles (when we have student articles, which happens very unevenly). I've given a lot of thought to how we can increase the leverage of our available pool of reviewer labor, and one of the pressure points is that (barring trivially not-ready material), the more inexperienced a writer is, the more reviewer labor it takes to review their work — making it extremely difficult to nurture an increasing community of Wikinewsies. --Pi zero (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A new article[edit]

Hi. I am back with a contribution. The address is here. I was for longer time preparing the article and reviewing Wikinews journalistic guidelines, in order to be as close as possible to a final result. I think also it is a very interesting matter. Please review it as soon as your agenda allows it. Thank you.--FiloActual (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Because I dont know how to move the tittle, which was too long, I did create a new subject here Regarding your notes, it is important to say the the official press release at premiosace.org and latinaceawards.org do show now the date: 19th March. The other one also shows the accurate date of publication. The other sources are there for the reader to verify additional but important information to understand the relevance of the event, that explains the context of the last three paragraphs. The fact that a very important and famous TV journalist, that is one of the best paid in a national television whose workers do suffer bad salaries because of a strong and long lasting crisis, has been openly judged by the oldest Latin journalistic association in the US because of "bad journalistic practices", is of course very relevant, specially in a news service like Wikinews where the quality and respect for the journalistic profession is patent. May be is not the kind of "easy" news that we read on the front page, partially investigative (but all facts real and demonstratrated). However, f there is a trace of "free journalism" in Wikinews we have to be able to help to spread also that kind of news. ----FiloActual (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I took care of merging the history of the old article and new article.
To move a page, there should be a dropdown menu at the right side of the tool bar at the top of the page.
It surprises me, off hand, that the only change made to the article was renaming it. Hopefully I'll get to take a look at it sometime in the next few hours; we'll see. (I'm in the midst of my... third review of the day? Something like that.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, it is not stubbornness at all :-) Just I made sure that direct sources to the new show accurate date, and that the sources indirectly talking about the context -which in this case is very important - also are specifically describing those facts. RTVE's correspondents are extremely high paid, and there is a source in the Spanish press that relates directly to Almudena's annual salary, around 200.000 euros. I think that many good journalists with a better understanding of our good practices in the US could be able to do that job for a troubled national broadcast such as RTVE without the need of getting paid so much. Also the text cited in the news is, according to a press release from a journalistic association, "to be known", to be spread". There is no problem citing that text, when citing and showing direct access to the original source at the official websites of the journalistic association. I don't have any problems nor issues changing the article, but I don´t see yet why it should be changed, it has a neutral POV describing the facts.--FiloActual (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, the lede mentions just one date, in February. Either the focus took place in February, in which case the article isn't fresh; or something else is the focus, and the focus should be what the lede talks about and gives the date of; or the date given is wrong. So at the very least something is awry there. --Pi zero (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a mistake from my side... :-) The date on the references and official sites is March 19th --FiloActual (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I was reading your last review numbered 3341195. I do not understand your proposal. It is impossible to present the facts "creating willingly" a "contradiction" of the event, a kind of journalistic contra natura -contra the facts. The event that is being reported, and upon which the newsworthiness is based, is about a condemnation because of false accusations. That condemnation takes place after a journalistic association takes care of the evidences presented by both sides. The result is described, and exposed. Well, this is it. A prestigious journalistic association, founded in 1967, publicly asks to RTVE, a foreign company in the US, "to dismiss the correspondent and to remover her from the US". Why? Because of offensive insulting plus false accusations paradoxically against the director who rebuilds the history of the Spanish immigration in the US. The event is that. It is not our mission to change the facts, but to inform about them. I really don´t see that the article has a lack of neutrality. It is in fact neutral. There are no judgments. When we read that "some correspondents are the best paid of RTVE", we are giving a source that verifies it. When it reads that Ariza is "among the best paid", is also there. When we say that RTVE is going through terrible economical problems, who is lying when talking about Spain, a country with a 23% unemployment rate or more during the last 5 years...? If tomorrow the United Nations issues an official report about something wrong in, let's say, Scotland, that's the event. No matter if we like it or not. We may like it, we may not. But the "event" is that the United Nations issued some conclusions about Scotland, and we will quote them, cite them, make a report about them, in order to inform about it. We are in that situation. I think it was a little bit too late for you to carry ahead the review tonight, and if we take care of this tomorrow reviewing, citing and completing the thing, we can get an important piece of true journalism. If something is important in Wikinews is that it is a free, for me in the sense of "independent", source of news. We can, and we have to also, go where other news agencies and newspapers will not take the step just to inform, because of corporative protectionism. For instance, EFE, the Spanish government news agency will never inform about the fact that an important, too well paid, famous journalist such as Ariza has created that kind of scandalous situation, because they will protect the image of RTVE at all cost, no matter what happens. What they want is to hide it and to stop it of being known, thus of being reported. We are just reporting it neutrally. That's why Wikinews is important, and should be something else than an academy for beginners, which is also important of course, but at all not the only reason why Wikinews exist. I will get up later than you in a few hours, but as soon as I am there I will see the changes and start collaborating. But I think at this point is your turn to round the piece before I get up. ;-) Please review the references and you will see all there is just related to the events. --FiloActual (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Of course I can see there is no collaboration on your side to "bring " the article to your personal POV on the matter, that seems to be considered the POV of Wikinews. After trying to bring that position as close to your POV as possible, the result is "I don't want to publish that new because I don't like it the way is done and I don't want the facts" and at the same time "I don't want to collaborate" in getting it done. If someone is judge by a court, and is found guilty, this is the event, no matter what Brian McNeil things. That is something you could do at "Brian McNeil Newspaper" if you create that news-desk. Those who made that conclusions cannot call all the journalist in the world, who eventually control Wikinews, for instance, imposing their criteria, to let them re-judge the subject, just in case they can "do it better" than the what they did. That's apparently what is happening here. You are compromising Wikinews independence and turning it into your "own" news service. If other collaborators do not find out honestly to reach "your conclusions", then you should try to show what do you mean by editing yourself a bit the thing. You are just putting barriers constantly to stop the article being published, no matter the newsworthiness of it. Also, you are trying to "deform" the nature of the new: if a journalistic association makes that statement after reviewing the evidences talking to both parts, you cannot start doubting that "where are Ariza's evidences...?" Well, you are just not accepting the event: the event, no matter if you like it or not: is that the Association of Latin Entertainment Critics of New York has found that conclusions after "fase accusations" and ask to RTVE to dismiss and take the US corresponde out of the country. Those are the news, we are trying to report them in case you let someone do it or help doing so. Also you loose too much time trying to give lessons to everyone, not considering that probably you are dealing with different journalists that do not share your apparently too personal and "own" way to control a theoretically free and independent news service. Also, you are not taking in account -which demonstrates that your are not familiar with investigative reporting- that probably Ariza and RTVE are at all not interested in "giving opinions" about those facts, because after acting, according to the conclusions of ACE, so bad in her position, the last thing she want is to start talking about it helping it to be known and commented. So for her and RTVE the best is to put as much silence as possible, and it seems that this is also the case here. Finally, you cannot pretend to substitute the authority of a journalistic association, deforming the reality that conform the noticeable facts. And the facts are, if you like it or not: "RTVE's US correspondent gets condemnation after stating fase accusations". Regarding other not understandable comments of your production: "the article situates Ariza under a bad image." This is not true: the conclusions after a judgement of her doings situate Ariza under a bad image: the things she did, and not we reporting them. We, journalists, are not untouchable, and there is for some estrange reason in journalists a kind of "will to power" exercising the profession. For instance, Ariza super too highly paid -as the proofs show and demonstrate- states false accusations and offensive insulting clearly abusing her position, and we cannot report it, even when a journalistic association of recognized prestige is asking to RTVE she to be deported out of the US. On the other hand there is something called Wikinews from a foundation to open up the news service, and in the end there is a person who controls the news service, you, and who imposes POVs to everything. And who, instead of helping providing that POV, just try at all cost to avoid the reporting of the facts. You are just blocking the reporting of the facts. If someone has so much power here at Wikinews as to control what is published and what is not published, then should have at the same time the obligation to show what is that "way" that kind of new based on those facts should be written. --FiloActual (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your explanation: "The tone of the article itself is, essentially, "X condemned Y because Y did bad things" instead of "X condemned Y, accusing Y of doing bad things". Y's guilt is presented as fact." This is completely wrong. Totally. This is false: "X condemned Y because Y did bad things". It is not the journalistic association who should be reported of accusing Y, it is the filmmaker who accused Ariza presenting evidences, and it is then "X condemned Y because of the facts and evidences presented by Z(the filmmaker)". Not because of "bad things". Because of the evidences. If you can do it better just do it, but do not block the reporting of the facts.--FiloActual (talk) 14:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@FiloActual: I've already explained in my review comments what is needed and why. You're arguing that your analysis of the situation is "right", and as I explained, whether or not it's "right" is the wrong question. --Pi zero (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikinews is not your property. Blocking facts being reported is not among the targets of a free and independent news service. You are not providing any help to show "what is needed" by "illuminating" us, poor beginners, with your wise and inmutable edition.--FiloActual (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry my explanations aren't making sense to you. I'm most interested in finding ways to explain Wikinews neutrality that come across clearly to newcomers. --Pi zero (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I made as many changes as I can to the article. Honestly is the moment for you to clarify "what is needed" showing how to manage reporting those facts. I, as others attending this situation, am very interested in understanding you. But it does not help to block the report instead of helping showing what are you talking about.--FiloActual (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

how to update a news article ?[edit]

First of all thanks for such tireless work, moderating so quickly and leaving behind valuable suggestions :). I also have a question, Is it possible to update a news. If in the following days there are updates and important developments, can we edit the news article like a wikipedia page or should we preserve the first version and add updates in a modular way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tilakdp (talkcontribs) 12:19, 21 March 2015

@Tilakdp: There are strong limits on what can be done to change an article after publication, and there are also techniques for updates.
  • Substantive changes to an article are only allowed for the first 24 hours after publication. Anything big enough to change the focus requires a fresh article. If we realize, before publication, that there may be significant changes within the 24-hour horizon, we tag it from the start as breaking news — the proper meaning of "breaking news" is, it's changing in real time so you shouldn't assume the article will stay the same after you've read it. (I wince when I hear the term "breaking" used by some TV reporter to describe something that's obviously not going to change anytime soon; it seems they don't really understand the term and are saying it because it makes the news sound sexier to draw in more viewers.) The most common use of breaking is for a disaster where the death toll is likely to rise within the 24-hour horizon; we also try to avoid writing a specific death toll into the headline in such cases, since we don't like to change headlines after publication if we can avoid it.
  • Assuming there's a development that can be a focus for a new article, though, follow-up articles can cite an earlier article — one does that in a "Related news" section using {{wikinews}}, rather than in the "Sources" section using {{source}} — and then freely reuse text from the earlier article without having to change it at all. That is, there are no copyright concerns because the Wikinews license allows you to reuse Wikinews material any way you want as long as you cite the earlier article; and this also makes review easier, because we've already verified that material. In this way we can incrementally build up quite a meaty article with lots of background. Once an update article has been published, we can also, in cases where it's particularly appropriate, add a forward reference from the older article using {{update}}.
--Pi zero (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Accredited Journalist[edit]

Hi Pi. Congratulations for "our" last work. I did learn indeed about neutral POV a lot! Unfortunately it was too arduous, but satisfactory final result at least. Now is for me the moment to ask you how to be an Accredited Reporter, I want to move to the next level. Let me know please the steps to put those strips on my shoulder :-) I want to make original reporting and interviews also, more creative material. --FiloActual (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@FiloActual: Although I'm not clear on quite what your relationship with the stuff you cover is, it's always seemed fairly clear to me you're quite emotionally invested in it. (Actually, I need to ask you about that; but I'll raise that issue elsewhere.) I don't get the sense you could do objective OR on it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I think there is people much, much more emotional about Wikinews than those who use the plain references to create content. We are going to have problems as you can see here. Without petition of deletion, without respect to references, without respecto of the facts: a news "source" that cannot respect facts is completely a fraud. The deletion of the news at the Spanish channel shows how works Spain, and why corruption is at its highest point in the Spanish country.--FiloActual (talk) 10:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I can't really tell anything from that. A typical demonstration of the problem of translation between languages. I can see it was deleted, and I can see the message describing the reason for deletion — in Spanish. Se ha detectado posible caso de uso de los proyectos Wikimedia a favor de Artur Balder. I can work out what each of the individual words means, but then I feel I'm looking at a standard phrase and some aspects of the overall meaning escape me. And when I run it through an automatic translator, I feel I'm no closer to the meaning of the whole than when I was reading it without. So I honestly can't tell what's going on there. It isn't giving off emotional vibes, for me, but I don't pretend to know, merely guess. --Pi zero (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you can believe someone who understands Spanish, I can give you the sense. The sense is, absolutely, nonsense. The "administrator" and bureaucrat at Wikinews is one of the "big guys" at the Spanish Wikipedia -of course, not identified-, who is there an administrator since 2005... That said, he deletes the article without discussions being he, Taichi, and another administrator of Wikinews, Ezarate, the same person... because "possibly" Artur Balder 'is using Wikimedia projects for his own benefit'. First of all: no discussion for deletion. 2nd: "may be" (may be... :-)) someone is using Wikimedia projects for his own advantage, which is a ridiculous statement: the news are based on true facts. It is the most corrupted form of institutional spanishness, and typical of Spain and its culture. In order to protect the one who got the condemnation, that "administrator" simulates the other one gets some benefit out of it. Period. Investigation at Wikimedia Foundation will start on Monday via legal. I told you: we are doing real journalism here at the English Wikinews, and Wikipedia in English works clean in general. The Spanish chapter is highly corrupted and controlled by a bunch of persons who are obviously taken advantage and misusing the projects. What can we do from here...? There must be a way to contact the Foundation from English Wikinews. I know that you now had access to the case "in-depth" --FiloActual (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah! On the actual translation of the reason, what I was missing — and seems obvious now that you point it out — was "for the benefit of Artur Balder". Thanks.
The individual projects, like English Wikinews or Spanish Wikinews, keep their editorial control independent of each other, and independent of the Foundation. If it became appropriate to escalate things, the Foundation wouldn't be the next step.
I see you did leave a note on the user talk page of the admin who deleted the article. My poor Spanish skills prevent me from confidently judging the tone of your note. In this situation the appropriate sort of note would a polite inquiry. The stated reason for deletion, in the deletion log entry which you link to, seems fairly straightforward; it's a class of administrative action that legitimately comes up from time to time, though hopefully not often. The thing to do in such a situation is definitely to start by politely asking the deleting admin about it, without assuming anything nefarious. The range of possible explanations is so vast that there's really nothing to be accomplished by making any assumption of bad faith about it. --Pi zero (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I was extremely polite. And I think you could leave a message in English asking for further information. They are not answering. By the way, if Wikinews Es is independent, it means it is "their property" de facto and no one can say or control anything?? Sounds creepy.--FiloActual (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Then which one is the next step if WMF is not in control of Wikimedia News Spanish? --FiloActual (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Catan sets a date for its King's coronation - Deletion[edit]

Hi, I have a problem with my article being called a hoax. I am reporting on Micronational News Articles and this was one that flagged an interest. Could you please advise where it might be a hoax? I made it unbiased and fair. Many Thanks Johnatmicronews (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll take another look when I get a chance. --Pi zero (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Johnatmicronews (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Archive published news[edit]

Hi. After how long are the news published to be archived and when will be possible not to edit them any more? Thanks.--FiloActual (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Substantive changes are only allowed for the first 24 hours after publication. After that, if there's an actual problem, we would have to add a {{correction}} notice to the article. Little stuff is still allowed after the 24-hour horizon, like typo fixes that don't change the meaning and some kinds of format fixes and other peripheral stuff; but after seven days or more, the article is removed from the main page listing and fully protected, and then you have to request the edits on the article talk page (best to use template {{editprotected}}) rather than make them yourself. When our output is high enough we fully protect after seven days, but we like to keep at least ten articles on the main page as a sampling of what we do, so we wait longer than seven days if necessary to keep ten articles unprotected. WN:Archive policy. --Pi zero (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Auto-Block[edit]

My account was compromised during my absence - please enable an indefinite block to prevent further damage to wiki projects. Thanks for collaborating. --BScMScMD (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC) P.S.: Enable an indefinite block on my Wikibooks account as well!

Havang[edit]

Hello, I changed long ago Havang tot Havang(nl), I did give free the account Havang, gave away my password at the same occasion. So I cannot log in with username Havang and not log-in with that foolish new username somebody created. If you do not remove the discussion page, please, remove my mail-adress from that foolish account, I can't. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@Havang(nl): Are you saying email to that account goes to you? If so, and if it doesn't also go to anyone else, I believe you can tell the system to generate a new random password and email it to you. That gives you access again to the account. --Pi zero (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:National Basketball Association[edit]

On this change ([1]), it's simply because the interwikis links are now on wikidata [2]. --Mazuritz (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I gathered that. However, there's this odd and imho over-hasty reflex to remove local data merely because it's also on Wikidata. I think that's harmful to the local projects; removing local data merely because it's present on Wikidata is inherently unstable and routinely harmful to local control (therefore also to local morale) and to local quality. A far more gainful employment of Wikidata on local projects would be to monitor discrepancies between Wikidata and local pages as they arise, and offer local editors with the option of redressing those discrepancies by any of several perhaps-customized courses of action, which would likely include changing the local data, propagating local data to Wikidata, noting (locally?) the reason why the discrepancy is allowed to stand (for future reference), and in some cases more elaborate measures involving other local projects. --Pi zero (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Noob[edit]

Hello. I saw, you made some changes on the article I just created. As I am new here, I have no idea if I did it correct or not. Please help me guiding WikiNews. Thanks
Acagastya (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Acagastya. Good to meet you. I'll try to help. The one thing I can't do is get heavily involved in writing the article, since I need to remain independent of its authorship in order to review it (that's described in the first pillar at WN:PILLARS). --Pi zero (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I just need some guidance to get familiar here. I am familiar with WP, but I don't know anything here!
Don't we have Adopt a user here?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
@Acagastya: Imho, Wikinews is an awesome project. Most of the time lately there aren't many folks here, though. We have some plans for the future, but meanwhile, like I said, I'll try to help. :-)
WN:PILLARS is a good overview to start with. WN:WRITE is meant to be a quick intro to writing an article. Ultimately there's the Wikinews:Style guide, which is deliberately kept short (by the standards of such documents) so it can be read in its entirety.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I should probably be mentioning {{Howdy}}, which is automatically put on your user talk page when you create an account :-). --Pi zero (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My changes to the article.[edit]

Were any of my changes to the article good? Did you keep any of them?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@PaulBustion88: Your edits all look like improvements to me, and I haven't undone any of them. The only difficulty was that the last one was after I'd started my review. I do realize the {{under review}} tag can be missed; we've tried to make it fairly prominent to minimize that problem, but still. --Pi zero (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Change to article about UN Gaza report by me.[edit]

Hello, could you review the change I made to this article? https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=UN_publishes_report_on_2014_Gaza_conflict&type=revision&diff=3471035&oldid=3464428 Paul Bustion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaulBustion88 (talkcontribs) 05:33, 3 May 2015‎

Hi. There's a catch — because news is a snapshot in time, our archive policy kicks in 24 hours after publication and then doesn't allow further substantive changes to an article. (We so need better software to provide context-sensitive guidance on this project; I'm actually working on that, but it's slow going.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)