Follow Wikinews'structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs.
If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask?
Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template. [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]
Welcome, Tduk! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally.
As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems.
Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere.
The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing.
Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.
Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion.
There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.
Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it!
It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.
Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Tduk
I came back from a long break and saw the page. The way it is written is biased headline and for the controversy claims and quotes, the dates (essential part of WN:5W) are unspecified. Could the article possibly be refocused on more recent event (the festival itself) and then later in 3rd or 4th paragraph the details of the controversy and claims be provided? I think that could be a good way to make the article more 'fresh'. (I am open to suggestions from others about this.)
Gryllida has started a tool. Keep working -- maybe you will become a Reviewer around here! These things happen from time to time -- I know it is annoying to have your work 'lost' in the grinder of time, but hang in there!--Bddpaux (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not concerned about my own work. This is a very bad look for the whole site and why I was asked here to try to help. There are a lot of policies that need changing and no one seems to want to discuss how to make this site actually work again. Tduk (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
First: Great effort! Interesting story! You might try to tighten up your language a bit (terse style). Look at paragraph 2. Much of that is rambly and 'crufty' (needless verbiage). We engage in journalistic writing here. And: It has gone horribly stale. Maybe it can be re-freshed --- not sure.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
I made some adjustments; is that what you're looking for?
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
For a newbie, it appears you are picking up on our 'house style' here fairly well. Please hang in there. Inverted pyramid. The Five W's -- all that 'Journalism school' stuff. Keep at it!--Bddpaux (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
...and while I'm at it. Let's draw a line in the sand on your submissions and move forward. I will try to check in more as a Reviewer. See my other comment about a Sandbox -- that might be a smart idea. I don't want to see your OR fail publication. Stay with it!--Bddpaux (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I did indeed stop my submissions once I saw the issues this site is having. I was told to submit things in order to become a reviewer, so that is what I did. I think part of the discussion about original reporting was on the talk page you deleted. Could you restore it somewhere? Tduk (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Your words and actions are teetering on the line of being disruptive to this project. I clearly stated: that event happened almost 3 weeks ago. I am deeply familiar with our practices in OR. However: I am a human being and am susceptible to mistakes. I need you to point out for me what/where in that article changes have been made to make THE STORY fresh. 7 days is the outer limit for freshness, when the focal event here happened roughly 18 days prior. Gatwicking may be an option but it won’t be easy.—Bddpaux (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
The first half of this should indeed have been posted on my talk page and does not belong here, as it's a personal accusation. The second part, regarding freshness, should be on the article's talk page and is once again ignoring the policy as I cited it regarding original research. I am not sure how to state it more clearly. I am not arguing that I made changes to make it fresh - I am arguing that it is still fresh according to policy, which states potentially "additional weeks". Please focus on responding to what I said. If you have an issue with what I was told regarding this by @Michael.C.Wright maybe you should ask him why he mentioned it. I would like it explained how discussing policy regarding a single article is disruptive. or is this not what you meant? Links would be helpful. Tduk (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
You're new here. I get it. This is your Talk page. BTW: Nothing is "private" here. This is a wiki. It is a digital community. I am going to state, for the final time: The focal event of that article was a thing that happened about 3 weeks ago. Weaving in some interviews does not wave a magic wand in terms of freshness. I reviewed that article and marked it as stale. You can (potentially) gatwick the material -- that is a possibility, but will take some concentrated effort. I have evaluated that article. The stuff you like to cite (Regarding OR) hardly applies within the Nth degree in this circumstance. I think you have AMAZING potential here. I have said that I will engage more as Reviewer -- and I meant it. I will look at the article again and will conduct a review. For you to re-submit for publication, something will need to be different.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I saw that you'd picked up on something 8 days after the event. That, plus what is in the article, plus a little something more recent might prove valuable for gatwicking this. I like the photos! This is an important story. What is sitting on the page right now could make 70% of a fairly fresh article. Any other media talk afoot about this event?--Bddpaux (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion
I am trying to encourage you. I mean that -- I really do. If you want to report news, I have been very clear: I will help as much as I can in that endeavor. I am serious! A fairly seasoned user (a moment) ago said you are just talking in circles. That is a correct assessment. I fear you have melted your keyboard telling us everything this project isn't and how its broken and what doesn't work correctly. You have pot-stirred and criticized and etc. etc. etc. ad nauseaumad infinitum for MANY DAYS NOW. As far as actions/work/time etc., I have seen dark days around here and INCREDIBLE days around here. I've been though it all -- and there is never a shortage of people who will tell us what English WN isn't. I actually connected with your suggestion about multiple reviewers -- an idea worth talking about indeed. I have made a promise to you and I will do my level best to fulfill that promise. I hope, from this moment forward, your actions and submissions to this project will be made in a spirit of community and positivity.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was explicitly asked here by @Gryllida to help, and told writing articles was the best way to start. Most of them went unpublished and not looked at. This was an experience also held by @Lofi Gurl and many others on the WN:Newsworthiness discussion thread; I became aware of their issues on the site before I experienced them for myself. This is at the very best a failure of WP:COMPETENCE of the site as a whole. You have, frankly, done nothing to restore my faith - alternating overly harsh words to me and others, and the opposite. All of my actions were coming from a space of positivity for the contributors, and it is a bit concerning that you don't see that. Tduk (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I patently see and give you credit for your positivity -- where it exists. That positivity of yours can, around these parts, be notably hard to find. By my calculations, you've been here a bit under a year. You've had around 7 articles published. A good thing indeed. So, Gryllida asked you to get involved here -- fantastic. She is quite the recruiter. I appreciate her actions. While I try to write clearly and may be a bit over-terse in my language -- I am trying to encourage you -- I am. Adults have conversations. They say things. A few of my comments might've been a tad angular, but they were NOT written in anger or a desire to tell you off so-to-speak. For quite some time, I am going to engage with you in terms of writing articles and publishing articles and functioning as an Administrator -- that's it. I want the project to be good...better...best! I do! But: we need reporters reporting and reviewers reviewing. I don't need to hear (for the 89th time) what this project isn't.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would say most productive effort mode is "20% copyediting others work in Newsroom, 20% writing new stories, 20% software development or testing and 20% connecting with external grants, education institutions, journalistic NGOs and 20% helping with other publishing formats such as spcial media posts, audio output and posting it to audio publishing platforms". Happy to be corrected though. Gryllida19:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think first we need to acquire some "media capabilities," such as having people conduct interviews and publishing relatively complete break news articles, etc(be able). Although we don't know the specific methods, this is one of our development goal. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago5 comments2 people in discussion
You'd stated (somewhere around here) about having been involved on this project for decades. Did you have a different user i.d. here? I might've missed some of your older work here.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think you'd said you'd been around English Wikinews for decades. I took that to mean you'd been a regular contributor to this project for decades. Maybe you were a reader here? Or, did you mean the Wiki Media project? That's what confused me.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
OK, since I am far outside the parameters of Reviewer on this one-- a few minor remarks you might consider:
There is a LOT going on in that one article, but even more so, a WHOLE LOT going on in that title. It probably could be renamed to focus a little more on the current festival
Speaking of which: I'm real confused on the dates in play here. I thought I'd read that the film festival itself ran Nov. 6th - 9th -- is that right? If so, please check the last sentence in the article.
The cluster of images: Maybe tweak some of the captions -- I think 3 images all share the exact same caption. That is a lot of photos for one event, but they do provide a broad perspective of the events (from what I am reading).
The festival is still going on, and the official website says so. I think you got confused by adding a link to an unrelated festival for some reason. Tduk (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 months ago10 comments6 people in discussion
I have typed. I have written. I have explained. I have commented. And for what is seemingly the most bizarre of reasons: Something isn't sticking. When Gryllida undeleted that (terribly stale) article, I can only surmise that you then believed you had carte blanche to do as you saw fit. I could be wrong. I don't know how you think. She prompted you to move it to your USER SPACE. I don't know that you've fooled around much with Sandboxes -- but that is the ONLY PLACE this article belongs (for you to maybe do something with down the road). I did see (very late in the article) some mention of some November and December stuff -- that might have a pinch of possibilities, but only just and will require MAJOR gatwicking. I had MANY things to learn when I came here. Ours can be an uphill experience. I have 4000 pounds of patience for anyone who wishes to learn. You have cajoled and complained and misunderstood to no end. Without counting, you've easily referenced English WN as failure easily 3 times in the past 60 days. Actions like pushing that article out do not help that issue. You indicated that Gryllida asked you to come here to be a Reviewer. You are 5000 miles away from achieving that office as it sits now. You pushing that article out for review is beyond the pale. My words absolutely belong on your Talk page, so other Reviewers can see your actions and my response. I've made minor mention in recent weeks of disruptive edits (and I tend to go very soft on such actions). I will say, for the FINAL TIME: An interview is not a magic wand -- it isn't. If an interview is the FOCAL EVENT of an article (that 100% does not apply on this current submission), we can totally go beyond 7 days...for sure. You are not brand new here. You have (and have had) more than ample time to engage with fresh, meaningful submissions. I care about this project and I profoundly believe you can improve as a reporter -- submissions like this do not move the needle in that regard.--Bddpaux (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was very confused when I saw this message on my talk page, since you didn’t actually say what you were talking about. Now I see you’re referring to the article on Yoshiko Chuma. Let’s see what happened exactly.
On Oct 30, you deleted the page with no reason supplied.[1]
When I asked why it was deleted, you said it had been marked as abandoned. [2]. We can now see from the history that this was false.[3]
We can also see that I was still actively editing the article - Oct 27, three days before you deleted it. When you deleted it, it was still in the ‘review’ state. [4]
I then asked why you didn’t move this article to a draft or user space, and you acted like you did not understand [5], so I asked Gryllida off-wiki if I was mistaken.
On Nov 11, Gryllida asked me to post on the admin alerts asking that it ‘’’be restored to a sandbox’’’, and I did exactly that. [6]
On Nov 21, it was finally undeleted - but NOT moved to sandbox. It still had the “review” state it had when you deleted it. [7]
Later that day, it looks like you saw it was tagged for “review” and did not remember the series of events that led to this, nor did you investigate it yourself, and instead appear to have jumped to some heated conclusions, including that I had resubmitted it (despite the history making it clear that I did not), resulting in this confused and accusatory message on my talk page. I, and others, have said that when you take this tone, it makes people uncomfortable, yet you continue to do it; others have even asked you to stop, but you refused.[8]
You are 100% correct and I was 100% wrong. If it serves as a modicum of some defense, the little voice said, "Maybe you should double check the timeline." I ignored that voice. I extend my sincere apologies for that action.--Bddpaux (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
For an apology to be meaningful, it should be both complete and it should result in a change of behavior.
You have not spoken about why you originally deleted the article, back when it was arguably fresh, and I was considering gatwicking it (as I did with another article).
You have not spoken about why you misled me about the reason you deleted the article.
You have not spoken about how inappropriate the tone of your text was, even if your assumptions were correct. This goes beyond this single issue and others besides me have expressed conerns to you over it.
You have actually apologized for heated language in the past, on my talk page, to me [12], and attributed it to something questionable in my eyes. This apology immediately proceeded this accusation that you made on my talk page.
For being the kind of person capable of creating a bullet list of that nature -- I do hereby retract 5% of my apology and that is the last syllable you will hear from me on the topic.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
How are you an admin here if you behave like this? You attempted to admonish a reporter who was in the right, and the above timeline shows the lack of care in managing articles. SWinxy (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I understand that was a human error of the 'I did not see something in that timeline, and made my decision based on incomplete information' kind
and as the apology was provided, it means that there will be effort to be more careful in the future.
You may (can't say where, but if requested, I can dig for it) find a part of policy here that says the key focus should be on content. Distracting to talk page beyond a bare minimum is considered a fatal flaw.
Hope this helps at least partially as a clarification.
The reviewer's comments and decision are available on the article's talk page.
Excellent work, please keep it up!
We hope you will continue contributing to Wikinews. If you have some time, consider taking a look at other articles currently under development or awaiting review. Your help in improving or reviewing them would be greatly appreciated.
This is an automated review notification. You can change your message preferences, including receiving notices only for articles you created or majorly contributed to, or disabling them entirely, at EzPR 2025/NP.
The reviewer's comments and decision are available on the article's talk page.
Excellent work, please keep it up!
We hope you will continue contributing to Wikinews. If you have some time, consider taking a look at other articles currently under development or awaiting review. Your help in improving or reviewing them would be greatly appreciated.
This is an automated review notification. You can change your message preferences, including receiving notices only for articles you created or majorly contributed to, or disabling them entirely, at EzPR 2025/NP.
I just realized I had intended to include which shows Fonda demonstrating what he did with a book in his early days of bass playing. Can we still get this added? Tduk (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sending this message to all users who edited the page ...
Published.
Krinkle says copyright of photos is ok.
Suggest to add how long it took, one hour, two hours, or whatever. Suggest to add utc time in parentheses. Minor changes. Can be done in 24hr or less from now.
A bit old. Better to write about it on the day, not a week after. OR kind of makes an exception. But this should be considered in future, to write news straight on the day.
Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
I am proposing to setup w:streak competition goals over a 12 week period: for example,
"write one story each two weeks, and babysit it until it is published" - for as many consecutive fortnights as possible
A role would have to be selected at start of the activity: this could be either authoring a completely new article or this could be taking over someone else's article and doing focused editing on it with active collaboration with others until it is published. It is like a day shift as you are expected to remain available 'on call' for 2-3 days after an event that is being subject of a report, to address concerns from another user or reviewer.
The aim of this is to build a habit of participation with outbursts of eyeballing the page to collaborate with others -- but not every day, to have breaks and reduce burnout. Could you please check out at this section and let me know what you think? Parameters are subject to discussion e.g.
'once every two weeks' or 'once a week' or 'once a month'
should this be same for all or each person decides for themselves
how long total comp running for, 12 weeks or 24 weeks or some other time
some other ideas how to modify this
i would appreciate if you could reply by end of this week, it would be helpful
The reviewer's comments and decision are available on the article's talk page.
Excellent work, please keep it up!
We hope you will continue contributing to Wikinews. If you have some time, consider taking a look at other articles currently under development or awaiting review. Your help in improving or reviewing them would be greatly appreciated.
This is an automated review notification. You can change your message preferences, including receiving notices only for articles you created or majorly contributed to, or disabling them entirely, at EzPR 2025/NP.
Looks good - although I had a question about this change [13]. I did not put my name in there and have no objection to it being removed, but you brought up the topic of accredited reporters in your edit description. As far as I know I applied to be accredited a month ago and it has more or less been sitting there gathering dust - did I miss part of the procedure needed? Tduk (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I did minor edits and strongly recommend writing the report immediately after the event, not five days after. The month that is being celebrated, is already almost over now...
I wanted to suggest video or audio uploads from such events if organisers and performers allow this.
Thank you so much for the report. Keep up the great work.
This is an automated review notification. You can change your message preferences, including receiving notices only for articles you created or majorly contributed to, or disabling them entirely, at EzPR 2025/NP. -- Gryllida (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)Reply
I love the fact that this project is on its way to the gas chamber, and you two have to quack about this. THIS is the last 2 years of this project. This ---- right ----- here. The truth? I made a mistake -- that's the truth -- really. Both of you have my unfettered apologies. Unequivocal. Unmitigated. Without reservation. Absolutely. That's it. Adios, to one and all! In the words of Dean Martin: Keeps those cards and letters coming! Wait: did that article get published? Gee, I sure I hope it did.--Bddpaux (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
You did not make a mistake. You made several mistakes, and when asked about them, you refused to reply until just now; are we to believe that was also "mistakes"? Further, I don't really think your tone is appropriate towards myself or towards @Lofi Gurl, nor in fact in the past to @Sheminghui.WU, especially coming from an administrator. Once again I ask you to reflect on your place in what's going on and what meaning your past actions have had on this site and its contributors. Tduk (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm sorry there was nothing we could do to save the project. It sounds like they made up their mind to wipe us out before they even gave us a chance to submit our final pleas. Whatever. I'm not going to try to challenge the project's policies at this point -- why bother? I guess I just don't understand the way things are done here. I guess we're entering into the dark ages. No more free news for the ages. The truth will fade, democracy will die... Lofi Gurl (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
Don’t give up on the fact that this decision is completely baseless, don’t abandon negotiation,let's just stick it out to the end since it’s almost over anyway. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Lofi Gurl @Sheminghui.WU we're all aware that as things were on this project, it wasn't all that viable. Have you read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-10/Op-ed ? Particularly, "And that's the fundamental problem of Wikinews: it's not a good newssite, regularly missing out important stories that affect large parts of the world, ... For comparison, have a look at Portal:Current events, a fairly obscure little Wikipedia-based side-project, which actually does a really good job at noting current events.". We all have seen from the inside why this is true, and that there was resistance to changing it. Tduk (talk) 14:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
You are encouraged to address the issues noted and resubmit the article once the necessary improvements have been made. Please keep in mind that news loses freshness quickly, so making updates in a timely manner will increase the chances of successful publication.
This is an automated review notification. You can change your message preferences, including receiving notices only for articles you created or majorly contributed to, or disabling them entirely, at EzPR 2025/NP.
Latest comment: 1 day ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Consider sharing a link to where the big file is uploaded to, instead of mailing the giant files to scoop. Not only it is huge for the mail, it is also replicated multiple times, one for each member with scoop access. ~2026-22097-45 (talk) 02:45, 10 April 2026 (UTC)Reply
~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
