Talk:UN reports condemn West Bank settlement

Copying

At least one sentence of this article is a direct copy of the source. Please go through it carefully and make sure all the text is original (except attributed quotes). --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, yeah I copied a few things directly from one of the sources, sorry about that I thought it was alright, but I'll go ahead and change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soapy (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Can this please be published? This is very important news and I have not seen mention of it anywhere in the mainstream press or on wikipediaSoapy (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Develop

Can I now move it to the review stage?

Publish

Publishable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soapy (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It would fail on style as inline links to sources are not used. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They are? I put inline links to sources, but it did get published, when can I see it on the main page?Soapy (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It still has inline links, I have removed the review tag as a consequence. This is also heading for {{stale}}. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait I'm not supposed to use inline links? This all seems a little unnecessary, I think it's much more important that we at least publish this article just because of the worthiness of the news. I think it's ridiculous how long this is taking, and I really cannot understand the refusal to publish this article as is.

The refusal to publish is because it does not meet the style guidelines. Inline links encourage people to leave wikinews and read the details on another site. This is why they are very strongly discouraged within the body of an article. Publishing as-is would be publishing something that does not meet the standards Wikinews sets; we don't do that. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was suppposed to use inline links, that's the only reason I put them in, I'm going to delete them something that takes about 5 seconds, and I hope that you will then publish this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soapy (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Trust me this article hasn't passed the style, lots of grammar mistakes and a bit of minor errors

This article needs more work. Please peer review it with your user account not IP. Not accepted. Fix the links etc.. Danger^Mouse (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

well by all means feel free to edit it... Soapy (talk) 08:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

well I think this is rather pathetic, here is this very important news story and rather than publish it with minor grammar errors we are going to totally ignore it. I invited anyone to fix these grammar errors and they don't want to. You say that publishing an article with bad grammar will make people go to other news sites for their news, no what makes people go other places for news is the lack of news given on this site, I think this is a good example of just how pathetic this wikimedia system really is.Soapy (talk) 06:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Passed review

Revision 730091 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I don't really like to see articles sit this long, but I see that a new source was added lately and went ahead and reviewed it as current. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 730091 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I don't really like to see articles sit this long, but I see that a new source was added lately and went ahead and reviewed it as current. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Updating the article

Thanks for publishing it, but I have question. Because the blockades are continuing and news is continuing to flow in concerning the situation, how should I go about adding updates to this article. Do I start a new page, or do I just add the information concerning the blockade to this article? —Preceding Soapy (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See WN:NOT. Wikinews articles are not works in progress. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a new article is the way to go. We like to preserve news as it was; see WN:ARCHIVE for information on this. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)