User talk:JJLiu112

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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


For archives, you could also add __NOEDITSECTION__ to hide edit links from each section/subsection. Not a compulsion, just you might find it useful.
•–• 03:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danke. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re my card with no blood group[edit]

I wonder if you also saw, the email mentioned on it was (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)[reply]

A file you had uploaded is deleted[edit]

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)[reply]

Dublin article[edit]

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

For what it's worth...........[edit]

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)[reply]

The template[edit]

You might need to tweak a few things:

{{Accredited reporter}}

Arbitration Committee elections[edit]

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)[reply]

Re RFP[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re: CLP article[edit]

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)[reply]

Back for good?...[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Understood. JJLiu112 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This long overdue token is to recognise your particularly fine contributions to Wikinews including several outstanding published articles. [24Cr][talk] 14:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

@Cromium: 22:00 or thereabouts sounds good, thanks. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May have to be pushed back half an hour. I’m really sorry. JJLiu112 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cromium: 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)[reply]
No worries. I’ll probably be free the same time tomorrow. [24Cr][talk] 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Successful request for reviewer[edit]

Crystal Clear app kdict.png

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}}.

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)[reply]

Temporary change to article length[edit]

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)[reply]

Israeli PM article[edit]

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)[reply]

No bother. JJLiu112 (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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 @Cromium, Acagastya: 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.)

  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 Flickr 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.

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)[reply]

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 Wikinews: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 [[c:Category:xxx instead of just [[. I call it antiquated because I'm pretentious :p JJLiu112 (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ha, I'm an idiot. Learn something everyday! Goodnight. JJLiu112 (talk) 03:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cars big winner as 34th Annual Annie Awards handed out[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks. JJLiu112 (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply][edit]

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)[reply]

Nope, thanks. JJLiu112 (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

On my Absence[edit]

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)[reply]

Re tesla[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Hi, thanks so much. I'll clarify the statement. JJLiu112 (talk) 01:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded upon. JJLiu112 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JJLiu112 Gryllida (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See also [1] probably. Gryllida (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Wikinews: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)[reply]
  • 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, @Gryllida: JJLiu112 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, I think that resolves it, thanks. Gryllida (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Thanks for your careful reading. JJLiu112 (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Resolved. JJLiu112 (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks JJLiu112. It reads better now. Gryllida (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This vs. that[edit]

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)[reply]

@Bddpaux: I suspect you are looking for WN:Style guide#Wikilinking an article. 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)[reply]
As User:Cromium 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)[reply]
Makes sense all the way around. I like it!--Bddpaux (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States stock market enters bear territory[edit]

Hi JJLiu112, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The request was per recent articles which have followed the custom. JJLiu112 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are saying: should the Style Guide be followed or not? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]