User talk:Andrew Davidson/news

Anti-satellite weapon ITN recognition

 * Thanks for proposing Kosmos 1408 at ITN, and getting it through that process! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Amusing to see the blurb mutating:


 * 1) Russia shoots down Kosmos 1408 with an anti-satellite weapon creating dangerous space debris.
 * 2) Russia shoots down Kosmos 1408 with an anti-satellite weapon, creating a field of space debris.
 * 3) Kosmos 1408 is destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite weapon and turned into a stream of space debris.
 * 4) Kosmos 1408 is destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite weapon and turned into space debris.
 * 5) Kosmos 1408 is destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite weapon and producing space debris.
 * 6) Kosmos 1408 is destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite weapon, producing space debris.
 * 7) Kosmos 1408 is destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite weapon and becomes a cloud of fragmented space debris.
 * 8) Kosmos 1408 is destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite weapon and becomes a cloud of space debris.

Andrew🐉(talk) 13:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It didn't stop at 8, "Kosmos 1408 is destroyed by a Russian anti-satellite weapon, scattering space debris in orbit". Stephen 02:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

2020 Beirut port explosions ITN recognition
 Timeline 
 * Explosion at 15:08 UTC
 * Article started at 15:42
 * Nomination started at 16:39
 * Nomination template added at 16:43
 * ITN template update at 18:22

Brexit ITN recognition
___CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk   17:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ebola
I don't know if you're looking for an entry in your block log or at WP:LAME, but honestly you're exhausting my patience and I'm an extremely patient Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The item in question was removed from the main page several hours ago and so the matter is moot here for now. Andrew D. (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The existence of the item on the main page may be moot, but your disruptive behaviour is clearly not. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * 4 Apr 2016 – WHO Update – "These latest cases in Liberia mark the country’s third flare-up of Ebola virus disease since its original outbreak was declared over ... Nearly 1,000 WHO specialists remain in the region."

Erica Garner ITN recognition


The file File:Erica Garner.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Public figure should have free image available or have free version submitted and released. Fails NFCC criteria."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DHeyward (talk) 07:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew. You said, "this was not explained clearly." Do you mean my explanation for requesting the deletion? If so, I either never thought or almost forgot that a rule like WP:NFC would make more sense than the phrase "Getty Images". Or am I missing something? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The technical issue was not clear to me at first but now it is. As you seem well versed in these matters, I welcome your involvement and assistance.  Thank you. Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) BTW, I think you mistook orphaned non-free revisions as di-orphaned fair use and then removed the tag. May you please reinsert it, so previous versions of the film can be deleted in favor of the current version? Thanks (again). And Happy New Year! George Ho (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right. I was confusing this with a similar incident when the other image picked up a bot orphan tag at some point.  I now appreciate the difference and have restored the tag.  Thanks again. Andrew D. (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With pleasure. Now what about the request you made at User talk:RHaworth? May you withdraw that please? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have updated that item, as you suggest. Andrew D. (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Per the result of the filing at WP:AE, you are warned to avoid hyperbole in future WP:AE filings. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It was surprisingly difficult to communicate the issue in this case – perhaps an effect of the complex submission form. I shall endeavour to do better in future. Andrew D. (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * For the record: AE, AE Appeal

George Andrew Olah RD
Hi Andrew... I see you pinged me in this edit re ITN/C for RD for Olah. I was away and unable to respond, but would have helped out had I been able. Please feel free to ping me again should you need a chemist's prespective. Cheers! EdChem (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for getting back to me. Andrew D. (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

George Laurer ITN recognition
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Homo sapiens
I removed your nomination before others commented as it is the same one that was already posted for today earlier, see Jebel Irhoud. --M ASEM (t) 14:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. I did skim ITN/C to see if it was already nominated but the different form of words didn't register.  Andrew D. (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Ian McDonald (civil servant)
A tag has been placed on File:Ian McDonald.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file with a clearly invalid licensing tag; or it otherwise fails some part of the non-free content criteria. If you can find a valid tag that expresses why the file can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the current tag with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the Non-free fair use tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the file. If the file has been deleted, you can re-upload it, but please ensure you place the correct tag on it.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --- Coffee  and crumbs  08:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Stephen 22:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Norilsk oil spill ITN recognition
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Putin fuel spill.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Dylsss(talk contribs) 14:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Rambling Men
Andrew, just a quick question, are you aware how WP:ITN functions? It appears from some of your recent posts that either your account has been compromised or you have an inherent misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia and the ITN section of the main page operates. Feel free to ping me so I can clarify things for you, right now some of your edits are being potentially misinterpreted by others as naivety or worse, I'd like to help you with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not clear whether ITN is functioning well or not because there don't seem to be any measures of success. At DYK, one can assess the effectiveness of a hook from the spike in readership.  This doesn't work with topics in the news because people will read them regardless of whether ITN lists them or not.  For example, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge has been snubbed at ITN but still has a bigger spike in readership than the Kentucky Derby.  Even the cleanup aspect of driving improvements to the articles seems quite haphazard.  The Kentucky Derby has had a cleanup banner tag since 2014 but was listed regardless and so Princess Charlotte seems to be doing better in that respect too.  Andrew D. (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That wasn't my question. There's little doubt that all processes across Wikipedia could be improved.  It seemed to me that you are unaware as to how ITN currently works, not how you think it should work.  In any case, just so you know, the focus is on the bold linked article in a blurb, so that's why the Kentucky Derby item was listed.  Charlotte wasn't listed because no consensus existed to post a royal baby, predominantly because she most likely will never be reigning monarch and also because this is English language Wikipedia, not British Wikipedia.  Popularity of articles doesn't equate to encyclopedic value.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The archetypal encyclopedia is Britannica. If you visit their home page right now, their lead item is a "Behind the News" feature — "British Royals Reveal New Princess’s Name".  Q.E.D.
 * If you click through to "More Behind the News", they offer three more - "Fight of the Young Century", "Messenger Mission Ends", "Pakistan jails 10 for Malala attack". The Kentucky Derby doesn't make the cut.  That's the judgement of a real encyclopedia: a new princess is more important than a horse race.  Most other mainstream sites seem to agree.  The only exceptions I found in a quick survey were Al Jazeera and Russia Today.  That's the company we're keeping — partisan propaganda, not encyclopedic values. Andrew D. (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, and how many main page hits does Wikipedia get compared with Britannica? Once again (for the third time?), if you don't want to see horse races on ITN, start the discussion at WT:ITNR, don't just take the easy whinging way out and ignore that a process exists to achieve exactly what you want because you can't be bothered to do anything about it.  It is oh so easy to sit back and bitch about the state of affairs, it is much harder but much more useful to actively do something about it.  You know the phrase "put up or shut up" I assume?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So, you're now saying that it's page views that matter, not encyclopedic values? Wikipedia seems to get about 20 million hits per day on the main page but my impression is that few of the many blue links on the page get clicked through.  Britannica has a much cleaner look with far fewer topics.  The prominence it gives to the new Princess is therefore even more significant.
 * As for WP:ITNR, that seems dominated by a long list of sports. It's more like the back pages of a newspaper than an encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, of course I'm not saying any of that. What I'm saying is: if you care enough, do something about it.  If you don't, stop bitching about it.  Simple as that.  If you prefer to work at Britannica, please do so, that would be great.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion seems contrary to the guidance at WP:ITN/C which states, "Please do not add simple "support" or "oppose" !votes". Commentary is therefore expected as part of the !votes there.  My comments seem consistent with others there such as "Oppose long-serving politician gets old and dies. Ten a penny I'm afraid..."   Andrew D. (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, deliberately or not, you're missing the point. You opposed ITN/R items at ITN/C.  Wrong.  But I'm clearly wasting my time (as you have been).  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Your original post above said nothing of ITN/R and ITN/C and instead seemed to suggest that my account had been compromised. If you wish to avoid wasting time, you might try getting to the point more directly.  Myself, I have enjoyed this conversation.  It's usually quite quiet here and it was interesting to look at Britannica's equivalent.  Today, they lead on another  "Behind the News" item: "British Go to the Polls".  That seems quite topical as the election hasn't been out of the news for a month.   But, apart from all the sport, ITN is discussing the Alberta general election, instead!  Britannica again seems much better at highlighting what's actually in the news. Andrew D. (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * ITN will certainly feature the British General Election, once the results are known and once the article is up to scratch. That's how unpaid volunteers who pull together to create a free encyclopedia work.  The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that there's an editathon for this. Andrew D. (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

ITN significance
Please review:


 * WP:POPULARPAGE: Article readership does not determine notability.


 * WP:NOTNEWS: Wikipedia is not a news ticker, and significant coverage does not solely determine notability.

Cheers! The  Kip  17:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The context for this seems to be the nomination of Kevin McCarthy at WP:ITN/C. In this discussion, The Kip opposed posting, while I supported posting.  The outcomes have included:


 * 1) Posting of a blurb at ITN.  This currently reads.  "In the United States, Kevin McCarthy (pictured) is removed as Speaker of the House."
 * 2) Creation of the article Removal of Kevin McCarthy which is now the subject of further debate and discussion at its talk page and elsewhere.
 * 3) On 4 Oct, Kevin McCarthy was the top read article on Wikipedia with 374,164 views.  Numerous other related topics were also in the top read list, including Matt Gaetz, Patrick McHenry, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and so on.


 * So, these are certainly popular pages currently but WP:POPULARPAGE is not relevant as that essay relates to a different sort of notability discussion. Such discussions at ITN are better described by WP:ITNSIGNIF which states:


 * So, this subjective discussion has been done and my view was the rough consensus. So it goes.


 * Andrew🐉(talk) 08:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The context for this was not the McCarthy nom but your consistent behavior at ITNR in which you seem to believe that an article receiving large amounts of views from readers and/or wide news coverage is automatically a strong argument for blurbing, when WP guidelines indicate the opposite. You’ve been warned about the readership stats argument dozens of times, and I can guarantee you that wasn’t even a minor factor in why McCarthy was posted.
 * Again, I encourage you to read WP:POPULARPAGE as it seems you still fail to understand it. Have a good one! The   Kip  14:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand WP:POPULARPAGE just fine. That essay has no relevance to ITN as it is concerned with a completely different process.  The confusion seems to arise because of the word "notability" which gets used in a variety of ways.  The key concept at ITN is significance which, per WP:ITNSIGNIF, is a different thing.  Please read WP:ITNSIGNIF to understand the difference.
 * As we have made our points, I am closing this discussion per WP:EXHAUST.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 07:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

WikiTribune
Did you mean to undo this or was that just an edit conflict error? ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal of one of those other media sites (The Rubin Report, as it seems to be a chat show) but the others all belong as they are explicitly covered and compared with Wikitribune by the sources. Citations can be added to confirm this but we don't normally put them in the See also section.  For example, "The ideas behind Wikitribune are similar to other experiments with sustainable community journalism. Dutch news website De Correspondent, for instance, was launched in 2013 after a €1m (£850,000) crowdfunding campaign, with a goal of focusing on reporter-led in-depth coverage of a select few topics backed up by strong involvement from a community of financial backers."

- The Guardian


 * Andrew D. (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I can see them being included, but I can't see promotional garbage like "Dutch news site that prioritises context in reporting" as a descriptor. Reader-supported sites as a heading is also dubious; it makes it sound like our readers "support" the sites, not that they're funded by readers. Crowdfunded news sites would be better. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I started the See also section this morning with just a bare entry for Wikinews, which was explicitly suggested by someone on the talk page. The section has since been fleshed out in stages.  Some push back is appropriate to stop it bloating.  Thumbnail descriptions for some of the entries seem helpful as readers won't be familiar with most of them, I suppose.  Please feel free to prune further but expect further developments.  There ought to be history and reception sections in which the site's antecedents and competitors are analysed and so the entries will move into the body from the See also as the article text grows. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is the bot putting it in the 22 May 2017 section if it's supposed to be in 21 May? wbm1058 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Those sections seem to take their date from the end-date rather than the start date. The article in question was on the main page for most of 21 May then then came off when 22 May started.  Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I asked about this at User talk:Shubinator. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)