text:
Comments:US interrogation techniques received early approval, report suggests

Bias report is Bias. This "article" reports noting on how the enhanced interrogation that SAVED Americans lives. And how 30 attacks in the US was stopped or only 3 top level terrorist where waterboarding with medical doctors right theere. And I'm sorry but when I think of torture I think of bones breaking lashing and leaving them alone in a cell.--KDP3 (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And How member of the Democratic Party supported this aka Miss.Nancy pelosi supported it.--KDP3 (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to make a note of that, but the focus was on Rice et. al. and the early approval, not the efficacy of the program. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact 30 attacks were stopped. The program work.--66.229.26.39 07:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is very clearly torture. Having your bones broken is not necessarily worse than being drown 100+ times. Your argument is more along the lines of "torturing terrorists is necessary in order to save lives"; some people might agree with it though. -Funicode (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your English is totally awful.

The American government officials that approved these acts of torture should be tried and given appropriate sentences for their crimes. During WW2 Japenese soldiers tortured American POW's (to gather information about use of WMD's). These soldiers and THEIR SUPERIOR OFFICERS whom gave such orders were put to death.

 * Big difference between cutting heads off and denailing then pouring water on peoples faces for only seconds. And FYI don't used a defense like that Japan killed millions and enslaved millions during ww2. And the only thing outcome that will come from these is a victory for the terrorist.--66.229.26.39 07:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Only seconds? Ends justifies the means, right?
 * The whole concept of waterboarding is to make the subject truly believe they are in danger of drowning. It is torture, and if you don't believe me I suggest booking a flight to Cuba and asking to be subjected to it. It doesn't surprise me in the least that someone as heartless as Dick Cheney could try and justify this, but I feel that a far larger portion of the US public should be burning his effigy and calling for him, Rice, and others, to be put on trial for this and potentially face the death penalty. Yes, I think the death penalty itself is barbaric, but a trial of that nature is the message that needs to be sent. Torture is never excusable, no matter what Jack Bauer does on TV. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Brian If their is an other Terrorist attack and God forbid it But I will know the blame will be on thous who betrayed the very people that defended this nation after good old Clinton turn a blind eye to Terror after WTC bombing,US embassy bombings and Tell Pelosi who said "we need to do more" on the waterboarding subject to be on the block with Dick and Rice. And Don't bring up Cuba with me Brian. And don't be mad their is people like me that are still willing defend OUR nation any means possible.--KDP3 (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Puh-leez! Remember "Wag the dog"? Clinton was accused of trying to deflect attention from domestic affairs when he sanctioned cruise missile strikes to get Bin Laden. I have no problem is Pelosi goes down with the rest for approving torture, but fuck this "end justifies the means" bullshit. When you have to resort to that to defend your 'great nation', then it isn't really that 'great' anymore, and you've abandoned some of the core principles that allowed you to make the claim that it was 'great'. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then leave MY great country and move to Iran they love the anti americans liberals like you.--66.229.26.39 04:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fool! Apart from the gross grammar error in your statement you've failed to notice that I'm not in America - writ large on my Userpage. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It is good you are sorry. It is not so nice the responisbility card is now played around, There is no openess about extrajuridicairy rendition etc. It will be hard to pinpoint single persons as instigators of this policy. As such it is interesting that internal memo's from 2002 already mention this excursion into torture methods. I guess that is what the problem is the choosen solution was for no of the party's as alien as should be. I don't think you should assume this form of torture is very limited. As soon as some form of torture is very limited it's effects are moderate. One danger of a such policy's is dehumanising the not often level standards of guards etc. even more. Someone who has serviced there would develop the wrong instincts to serve in any national institution afterwards.etc.etc.24.132.170.97 22:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


text:
User talk:B5baxter~enwikinews

tempo divalse  00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called B5baxter. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name B5baxter~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:B5baxter~enwikinews


text:
User talk:116.30.219.20

Hello,

Your recent contributions are considered to be spam and have been reverted or deleted. Should you believe that your contributions are not spam, please argue your case on your talk page, or in WN:ALERT.

Further spamming may result in a 24 hour block. Please contribute to Wikinews in a constructive fashion instead. Thank you. tempo divalse  02:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:116.30.219.20


text:
User talk:Kilbad

tempo divalse  03:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kilbad


text:
Comments:'Guiding Light' to flicker out after 72 years on radio, TV

Yes, the Light died with Gail Kobe/Pam Long Hammer regime, who tried to turn Guiding Light into their defunct, and canceled NBC "Texas." Within days, gone were "Mike Bauer;" the beautiful and talented Kathleen Cullen (Amanda Wexler); John Wesley Shipp. Great talents. And P&G let them do it. Then they turned "Hope Bauer" into an alcoholic, then fired her because Ms. Rousell did not agree with the character change. Suddenly Alan Michael, Hope's son, appears. Babies two days before, now Phil, Rick and Alan Michael: adults. Only few talents remained after the ax of Kobe/Long Hammer. Suddenly, rejects from "Texas" have starring roles! Then we get an talentless Kim Zimmer to attempt to fill the excellent talent of Lenore Kasdorf("Rita"); Lynne Adams ("Leslie Jackson Bauer"); the beautiful Fran Myers ("Peggy Scott Dillman Fletcher Thorpe" - now an Emmy award winning writer.)Why didn't P&G bring in someone who knew the show; was the star of the the show - why, with all the problems have they NEVER had Fran as headwriter? So, get canceled. I stopped watching GL 23 years ago, when Kobe/Long Hammer & P&G fired Marcia Clarke ("Hillary Bauer"), because they didn't want her to take her vacation during an "important story line"? P&G have allowed that talentless Kim Zimmer leave the show more times one can count. I feel sorry for the actors who will loose their jobs: Newman, and Sloane, especially. Yet I am so glad, to NEVER see Kim Zimmer's face on daytime TV again. Fired from "The Doctors;" fired from "One Live to Live." Good riddance to her. She can't hold a candle to the daytime greats as Mary Stuart ("Search for Tomorrow"); Erika Slezak & Robin Strasser (OLTL); Judith Chapman (Y&R); Gillian Spencer ("Robin Fletcher, GL, among other roles); Eileen Fulton (ATWT). Even Susan Lucci (AMC) can act circles around Ms. Zimmer. Supporting actress Tina Sloane has more talent than Zimmer. I'm glad to see Guiding Light go. P&G was lucky to find "Search for Tomorrow" a new (short lived)home (with the great talent, Mary Stuart). Never happen with Guiding Light. The show died with Kobe/Hammer. Good bye, Guiding Light. "Blow out the candle, Laura." -Laurent0510 (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

yes! my name is Iene Reese and just wanted to say i was born 02/04/1960. Raised by my grandma, great grandma, and my aunt, three very lovely women, well to the point, just wanted to let the cast of the guiding light especally the ones that has been there all these years, know that i fell like im loosing a big part of my family, cause i have been with them since i can remember, i have watched this show and all others that have came and gone in the past fourty nine years, with my grandmother whom watched them all till she passed away and i continued on with them especially guiding light, it is rellly like a part of me like its my family, i moved away from my hometown seventeen years ago to keep me and my children alive from an ex whom was trying to kill us, so ive been away from my family all these years, and would cry everyday reva cryed and laugh when she laugh see i through the tv adopted her as my mother she looks and acts just like my mom well grandmother, i felt close and like i know her inside and out, her as my mom and josh as my father, and i well i love and cherrish all whom play on the show, i met danny santoes in person when he came to ft myers florida. would of given anything to of been able to of meet reva and josh in person and given her a big hug and showed her shes a part of the way i am in my life with my children loveing careing protective, especally since the way my brother and i's life were as babies, we were beat molested, and so on and she is the one that has goten me through all my fears and pains my tears, and tears i have cryed with her on the show. just wanted to tell them all through GOD now matter where they all may be or go on tv, or in the world my heart and prayers are with them always and i wish them luck in their future lives, and maybe one day i will see them on the streets on vacations or something, and would very much like to shake there hands on how all these years i made it through life cause of them all, cause they tought me alot just from watching them, and it will stay in my heart and my sole forever. LOVE YA ALL MUCH IRENE REESE. MAIDEN NAME DeVault from columbus ohio. live in n Ft Myers Florida now. MY prayers will be with ya all always, and so will my heart. GOD BLESS YA ALL AMEN, LOVE YA ALL ALWAYS. Your still my family and always will be.

I am going to miss 'Guiding Light' When it's Gone
I don't know about most people, but I am going to miss Guiding Light when it's gone for good on September 18th, 2009. --Ericthebrainiac (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I grew up with Phillip and Rick forty two years I have been a fan. I cant imagine life with a game show. Im still watching my 17 year old is wathching we hurry home to view this show. How dare P&G to take away my favorite show to accomidate another generation, who are shallow and self centered look at Tv today how stupid. Says alot about the next generation of world leaders they only want reality and laughter and Stupid. GOOD BYE TO GUIDING LIGHT  My friends my family Rest in peace and I will never forget the things u helped me through in troubled times. I love you all very much, Bert, MO, Alan ,Roger


text:
Wikinews talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 1

Assumptions
In writing up this policy I selected the number of 5 members for the committee semi-arbitrarily based on discussions with others:
 * Should be odd to avoid deadlocks of a full committee.
 * 3 members seemed too exclusive, 7 perhaps too unwieldy.
 * 3 of four persons queried suggested 5.

Based on discussions on the water cooler, annual voting seemed most preferred. However, having seen issues develop on Wikipedia during terms, I have proposed a system where committee members terms should be staggered and up to one year in length (their choice), and that a discussion should occur when a vacancy happens, rather than waiting for an arbitrary term to be completed or requiring appointments from some higher authority.

Dig in here and come up with other solutions or changes to the policy. - Amgine 01:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I like the concept. Short and simple. Five members seems fine to me. The problem that those five are likely to be involved in a dispute before it even comes before the ArbCom, well, I think that seems unavoidable with a small community like this one.
 * One small question: Should we specify which cases can be brought before the ArbCom or are we gonna leave that that up to the Arbiters? --Deprifry|+T+ 02:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your work on this Amgine; in my opinion it is an excellent draft. I propose that the members of the committee not be current administrators. This will help avoid a lot of nasty "conflict of issue" situations and we have plenty of capable and active non-admin contributors as well as lots of great semi-active and inactive admins (who could resign their admins to serve). I'm thinking of the likes of The bellman and CGorman. Neutralizer 14:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the votes of confidence! Deprify: I think we leave that up to the arbcom, although I would encourage them to avoid second-guessing clear cases of enforcing policy (but encourage them to take up the murky ones.) Neutralizer: When the time comes for nominating members for the arbcom I encourage you to nominate either or both of those as well as others you feel are knowledgable members of the Wikinews community, but realize that each person will have to accept a nomination based on their perception of how available they can be and whether they want the job. - Amgine 03:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom members should Not retain their adminships

 * Amgine, you must have missed my point entirely. Here,on the discussion page, I am suggesting that the arbcom members be made up of non-admins or semi-active admins who would be willing to resign their adminships...the total of non-admins and semi-active admins make up 90%+ of our contributors and provide an ample pool of potential nominees. If an active admin. wants to be ArbCom; then the requirement should be that they de-admin. themselves so that we don't have to deal with the ongoing commotion of conflicts of interest and recluse requests. This is just plain common sense. With all the other capable people here, why would we want to have to deal with the problem of admins judging people they have been in recent disputes with; which you yourself said would happen frequently. You asked for discussion points and this is one right here. Neutralizer 03:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any restriction on who can be a member of the arbitration committee built into policy. New editors or old, admin or not, anyone who has the trust of the community should allowed to be an arbitrator. We should not place artificial restrictions on the community in their choice of arbitrators. This is a question of basic equality. The community should not be forced to automatically exclude anyone from this process. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Wow; I must be worst communicator on the planet. I am not saying anyone or any group at all should be excluded from nomination..I'm simply saying that if an admin stands for election and is elected then they must give up their adminship; just like when a lawyer becomes a judge he suspends his law practice. This is soooo elementary to having a judicial system with integrity. Arbitrators are NEVER administrators of the establishment where they arbitrate. It's simply unethical and suspicious in appearance if not reality. Neutralizer 03:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, all of the Stewards can and do utilize administrative powers when required (though that is not their role). The Wikipedia arbitration committee, though unwieldy on some points, has no restrictions on membership (that I'm aware of) and this hasn't been a problem for them. By placing artificial restrictions on who can be an arbitrator we restrict the community's choice -- we should not place anyone in a position of having to choose a good arbitrator over a good admin. When I try to argue that admnistrators might have a conflict of interest, I cannot... All arbitrators have an equal chance of having a conflict of interest -- because this is a collaborative project and conflict between editors is common. We must remember that we are not a democracy, we are not an experiement in online self government, anarchy, or anything else... We are a wiki and we write news. If we could edit harmoniously we wouldn't even need an arbitration committe. Please, lets not make this any harder than it must be. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Repeat; Not calling for restrictions of any kind on who the community can nominate nor on who can be elected. This is not making anything harder; just making it more sustainable and reputable. Why do most discussion topics degenerate into 1 on 1 debates? and always with an admin being on 1 side of the debate. I'd like to hear what others have to say. The practical point is the community comes first; not individuals; so with all the semi-active and inactive admins and non-admins we don't need the aggravation of having the few active admins running arbitration where it's already been established they will likely run into lots of conflicts; "I could probably not serve on the committee: I would need to recuse myself from nearly any case due to involvement with it, and so it would be useless for me to be on it." Amgine. If an active admin wants to be an arbitrator that's fine; but they have to choose; and there's nothing wrong with that. Neutralizer 04:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you either misunderstand the role of administrators or simply wish to discriminate against administrators. Why wouldn't an admin want to be an arbitrator? Their roles are fundamentally different. The argument could be made that arbitrators should be administrators -- regular editors cannot view deleted edits which might be used in the arbitration process. By placing restrictions on who can serve as an arbitrator you place the community in the position of choosing to de-admin a potentially good administrator -- you also force the administrator to make a choice. Equal rights for all Wikinewsies. We should all be able to serve in any and all positions the community chooses for us. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Repeat; No "restrictions on who can serve as an arbitrator". I'm not imagining potential conflicts; they would be a reality; "I could probably not serve on the committee: I would need to recuse myself from nearly any case due to involvement with it, and so it would be useless for me to be on it." Amgine I will say no more on this and welcome the opinions of others and the will of the consensus. Neutralizer 04:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Just because someone is an ADMIN doesn't means that they have a conflict of intreast with everybody in the comunity. Admins have no special editing rights and should be treated just as any other user. their job is to act on behalf of the comunity to acsess features that could screw everybody over if an ill-intentioned user messed with them.(like blocking and editing things like MediaWiki:Sitenotice). If an Admin is having a Conflict of intereast with another member of the comunity, then it should be dealed with in the same way as anybody else having a conflict of intreast. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 04:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Resource info; "General Standard 2 states that an arbitrator must not serve when either:

A; he considers that he has doubts over his ability to be impartial or independent; or B;if facts or circumstances exist that from a reasonable third person’s point of view having knowledge of the relevant facts, give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator's impartiality or independence. "

According to Amgine (above quote) It's likely that B will be a problem for active admins. In either de-admin hearings (loyalty factor) or de-editing hearings (previous direct involvement or loyalty to other active admins with direct involvement). We have 9 really active admins right now,9 semi-actives and 8 completely inactive admins. For the semis and in-actives, suspending their admins should be no problem at all and for the dozens of non-admins it's a non-issue...only the active admins will have to make a choice so, what's the big deal? Neutralizer 15:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Opposal to Committee
It is in my faith that I see no use for such a committee. If a user has violated the blocking policy, he should be blocked. If the user repeats, it should be a longer block. If the user doesn't make any edits contradictory to the blocking policy, they cannot and should not be blocked. All users who currently would be applicable to the ArbCom as interviewees would, in my opinion, show no respect to those on the committee as they already show a great lack of respect for the administrators and other community members here. Therefore, I oppose this committee - concluding that such a board would be unnecessary with the current issues and policy enforcement this site attempts to perform. --Mrmiscellanious 04:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarification please; what do you mean "in my faith"? Neutralizer 14:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this is mainly needed when the policy is not clear on what to do. There are a lot of cases where policy is not clear cut. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Still wondering what "in my faith" means; is it a religious reference or some form of colloquialism? If it's a religious reference and religious beliefs are overtly impacting our policies; then that is a serious event that should not be pushed under the carpet,imo. Neutralizer 14:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutralizer, that was a single comment from a single user - IF, and that's a big if because it could mean many things and I don't know any religious that reference wikinews, MrM was talking about religion, it would not and should not in any way effect the site. Under the carpet? Who was pushing it? Sorry, but all I see is MrM expressing opposition, and it should be kept like that. Lyellin 16:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lyellin; again I used the wrong word; I meant we should not ignore a religious reference if it's used in connection with policy decisions. You're right, it has nothing to do with "under the carpet". Neutralizer 16:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of Arbitration?
I would contend that some of those spending an inordinate amount of time on policy that may relate to sanctions that an individual or group appointed by the community can take against a disruptive user are those most likely to be on the receiving end of such sanctions. I would propose that discussions on the Arbitration committee be closed as soon as possible and ask other members of the community to endorse this proposal. As a worst-case I would again suggest that we continue without an ArbCom and someone inquire with Wikipedia if we, being a small community, could "borrow" their ArbCom in the event that a dispute such as United Administrators of Wikinews versus QPOV has to be brought.

As far as I am concerned the current project page is reasonable. It's really simple if you summarize it, you go before the ArbCom, the case is accepted or rejected, if accepted a ruling is forthcoming, failure to comply with the ruling may be enforced by blocks. It most definitely does not need analysed under a microscope. There are several points I've seen mentioned on this page that need covered.
 * First, the odds of needing administrator privileges to review evidence for a case are probably quite high. Yes, this means that if someone is seeking an arbitration ruling against an individual administrator they'll need a friendly administrator to look at deleted edits and say if they were appropriate or not.  If they can't find said friendly administrator, they're kinda SOL.  We're all allegedly volunteers, studies and real work can mean that you've got to believe something merits the effort.  Here's the important point that should be drawn from that... Requests to de-admin are serious, require a high quality and reasonable quantity of evidence and are the purview of the ArbCom
 * Second, the requirement to stand down in case of conflict. This has the potential to lead to a reenactment of the courtroom circus that can be jury selection.  You're back to needing someone who can make an objective judgement on someone's fitness for the case before the ArbCom.  I don't have a solution to this, but it is an issue in that the entire community can get sucked into an ongoing controversy and disruptive users can then go, "nya nya! nobody's objective enough to do anything about me".  Conclusion: Inactive admins should be welcomed onto the ArbCom if they can make a commitment to free up a half day or so given seven days warning.
 * Thirdly, and I'll stop after this - I do not want to spend lots of time on policy that works for me - is for a few people who have kept speaking on this to review their contributions. If we actually had an ArbCom I believe I could - if inclined to the effort - raise a case right now.  One, I'm not that aggressive/confrontational, and two, I do not want to start listing off things I'd like done to people for site disruption, they might not be legal in all states of the US ;-). We are supposed to be a community with the objective of getting the news put together for people to read.  Endless discussions that go nowhere belong on Usenet. Conclusion... if you think I might be picking on you with these comments, look at Indymedia and take edits you know wouldn't be accepted here to there, our license (I believe) allows you to do that. Brian McNeil / talk 16:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Would it not be possible to give arbitrators the authority to look at deleted edits? Agreed about inactives being a great source. I appreciate the comments on the issue and will not respond to the comments of a personal nature which,for sure, do not assume good faith. I think the project is important and will try to be a messenger of important facts(e.g. the Dan100 unilateral nonsensical restrictions on de-admin listings and the fact we do not have to have an arbcom where conflicts of interest are likely to be the norm) and to draw attention to existing or proposed policy which seems to be nonsensical; and then let the community decide what it thinks is reasonable. Neutralizer 17:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Who can view deleted edits isn't something I can comment on. It is a technical change, not just a few bits of wikicode.  The other thing I'd like to request is you leave this page alone for a day or two to let other people comment.  Repeatedly adding little bits to a conversation isn't giving time for the thing to be balanced by input from others (who I would like to comment with a view to closing and archiving this page with some semblance of agreed policy on the project page).  Now if you don't mind, I'll go look for an article page to improve. Brian McNeil / talk 18:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a great idea,Brian; I suggest we retire for a cup of tea. Neutralizer 19:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Closure of ArbCom discussion
Brian McNeil proposes above; "I would propose that discussions on the Arbitration committee be closed as soon as possible and ask other members of the community to endorse this proposal."

I have decided to endorse Brian's proposal because at this point any arbcom is better than no arbcom. I will assume goodfaith that there will be no self election(block voting) to the ArbCom by the 4 or 5 most active admins. Neutralizer 18:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I too endorse adoption of this draft as policy and trust the community's wisdom in selecting arbitrators through consensus (not through election). --Chiacomo (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree too, becuase arguing for ten years isn't goining to get us anywhere. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I support this draft aswell. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am very disappointed that we need this, but it seems as we do so I am going to support. I would prefer if a few limits on what the arbcom can and can not do (ex. no block longer then x) would be added to the proposal. --Cspurrier 17:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm going to assume, lacking opposition, that this proposed policy is in force then, and we should begin considering a slate of people who would be good nominations to serve. -  Amgine | talk 03:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I wannabe on Arbcom
-Edbrown05 03:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * to hear an issue that has no relevance to a story trying to be published
 * to hear an issue that has no relevance to Wikinews trying to get a story published
 * to hear bulls**t

 * I think I will nominate Edbrown05 for Arbcom... -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I second the nomination for Ed.
 * Also, Me too; I see through the bulls**t and my Grandfather was a Georgia judge. Neutralizer 19:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee
Arbcom is an attempt to let rest with the findings of 5 persons an issue that the Wikinews community cannot resolve among itself with regard to its members.

It's a complete waste of time. -Edbrown05 03:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews downplays conflict with its contributors because it assumes good faith from the community, meaning that all who contribute do so because of the interest they express in the news, a shared watch.

Terms
We are supposed to select staggered terms of up to one year... We could offer those with the most support first choice -- or we could determine terms some other way. If no one objects, my term could expire January 1, 2007 0000 UTC... Any other thoughts? --Chiacomo (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the staggered terms issue needs to be addressed. The policy as proposed calls for it, but I sense some reluctance on Wikinews to constant voting. If every two months an ArbComm member was up for re-election, would there be much interest in the voting process. Perhaps the community would prefer to deal with the issue once a year with an annual vote. If not, then every two months would be reasonable for one of the ArbComm members to come up for vote. -Edbrown05 00:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned that a vote every few months for just one open seat might result in a much more adversary process as that would put people in direct competition and might create division in the community. --Deprifry|+T+ 14:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

6 vs 5
I think there should only be 6 members when theres a tie. normally there should be five.Bawolff ☺☻ 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Other last minute thoughts
If arbcom makes a very bad ruling (that everyone not on arbcom disagrees with) is there any way to appeal it? Does it go to comunity vote (Straw poll yes vs no for voiding ruling). Oh well thinking of this would be Instruction creep so I'll stop thinking now. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

6 vs 7
I dont think 6 persons in arbcomm is really that good. I suggest an late expansion to 7 members to get an odd number. We have 7 good nominees and lets invite Elliot K by set the number of member in arbcomm to 7. Or make a new vote to find the 5th member between Ed and Craig International 13:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I very much like the idea of a 6 person arbcom, I think the fact that we can tie will prevent a small majority from overruling a slightly smaller minority. I believe this will help force us to work together and find solutions that are more widely acceptable. If we do run into cases that we can not get beyond a tie, we can always take the matter to a community vote, or let Jimbo or an agreed upon board member be the deciding vote.--Cspurrier 17:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I think possibly a comunity vote or the board, but arbitray descisions by jimbo is a bad idea in my opinion. If we had to have arbitray decesions, I think Eloquence would be a much better candidate. (yes I relise Jimbo is on the board). I support a 6 person arbcom (I wouldn't care that much if it was seven, just not another election.) Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Eloquence has been involved in several conflicts with other users, I would have supported him as a member of arbcom but since he was not elected, I would prefer giving this power to someone on the board or to Jimbo(who ultimately has this power anyways).Additionally I would prefer to have someone less likely to be involved in the dispute. --Cspurrier 23:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If Jimbo will accept his being the "final court of appeal", then I would prefer giving it to Jimbo. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I respect Jimbo very much, but I would disagree with giving Jimbo the final court of appeal. I do realize his word is more or less law on wikimedia projects, because he more or less founded wikimedia and when it comes down to it he can decide whatever he wants and everyone (including me) will listen. However, he has done limited work on wikinews (I know that he did some stuff at the begening, but nothing recent). I think that his judgements would not be as respected because he does not know what happens at wikinews until a point of time where something blows-up and he's called in to settle it. Therefor most everything would be distorted, and I believe that a comunity vote (or Eloquence) would be better. (whew, that sounded kinda harsh but I'm not sure how to put it less bluntly). Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I would have to agree with Bawollf above, mirroring the musing that we should not, as a community, rely on one individual to call the final decision (especially one who hasn't been active in quite a while). With all respect to the user, this should be decided in another fashion.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it'll ever be an issue; If a 12 person jury has to come in unanimous, then surely our 6 can stick with it til they have a majority. Neutralizer 01:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, worst comes to worst, we could always ignore the arbcom (Yep, thats definitly my worst idea yet) Bawolff ☺ ☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Recuse
Chiacomo advised we needed our own policy, so for now I have included the WP policy verbatim as a starting point. Neutralizer 17:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

"Proposed policy"
Please start a consensus poll. As of yet, this is still a proposed policy. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your opposition to ArbCom is noted above, but you failed to ellaborate on it when asked to do so by other members of the community. Opposition to the committee could also have been voiced under the Closure of ArbCom discussion heading. A single member opposing the proposal doesn't constitute a consensus against the policy - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All policies are proposed. We've already had a concensuss poll. but if you insist... Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Polls/Arbcom→official

Editing policy
I will make small but important changes to policys regarding ArbCom. See them as bold suggestions as all changes to policy. international 00:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

election Time
It's time for a election, 3 members terms expire (Bawolff, Craig Spurrier and Deprifry). I propose Pre-Election and Nomination Period from Jan 11, 2007 - Jan 17, 2007, and the Arbitration Committee Elections running from	Jan 18, 2007 - Jan 31, 2007. thoughts? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Sounds good. Tell me if you need help with anything.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Successor to MessedRocker
Since MessedRocker resigned, are we going to hold another election, or just have 4 seats up in July?  Thunderhead  ►  01:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't know. I've emailed everyone on arbcom to see what they say. So far, 3 people want to leave vaccant t'll next election (a couple of months). No one else has responded. MessedRocker said "I don't care what you do with my vacant seat -- I abandoned it and so it is left for the public to claim. I nominated Skenmy merely as a suggestion if you couldn't be bothered with yet another election." So assuming no one objects, looks like just fill up next election. Its not like there is an urgent need for arbitrators. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Filling the seat at the next regular election probably is the best course of action. An election for just one seat would be unnecessary contentious and the person elected would serve only a few months anyway. --+Deprifry+ 08:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct. I removed Messed from the RfC and RfO page that ArbCom started.  Thunderhead  ►  09:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Election time again
It is rapidly approaching. The seats held by, , and will soon expire. We need Wikinews Arbitration Committee Election Coordinators, etc. I will set up Arbitration Committee/Elections January 2008 based on the July page. --SVTCobra 23:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to extend terms and have annual elections for all seats
 'Consensus has been reached on this proposal, and the result is passed''. Do not add anymore votes or comments on this request. '  Closed by SVTCobra''

Proposal
--SVTCobra 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Extend the terms of current ArbCom members,  (formerly Brian New Zealand) and  by six months. These terms, which were due to expire on January 31, 2008, would then expire July 31, 2008.
 * 2) The terms of all six ArbCom members would then expire on July 31, 2008. Elections will be held during July to elect or relect members for a one year terms, which expire on July 31, 2009. Elections will be held every July going forward until needs dictate a change in this procedure.

Comments

 * It has been suggested that having elections every six months for our rarely used Arbitration Committee is too burdensome. This proposal would alleviate that. There was a failure to implement a similar schema, the outline of which can be seen here. Please vote soon, because if this fails, we will have to organize elections under a time constraint. --SVTCobra 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have questions about this, they may already be answered in this discussion on WN:AAA. --SVTCobra 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * --SVTCobra 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Adambro 23:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * , but only because there is little-to-no activity on WN:RFAr (otherwise I would have to oppose; the staggered terms makes for a more stable ArbCom). —Zachary</b> talk 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * --Jcart1534 00:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 21:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * don't have a problem with it either way. –Doldrums(talk) 19:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 17:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This should not apply to Brian as he has publicly announced his temporary withdrawal from the project. Therefore the election for his seat should take place on or around January 31st. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 17:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * However, Brian mentioned on wikinews-l, that he could pop in if any bureaucrat action was required. I assume that might extend to arbcom if needed? --Jcart1534 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ArbCom is often a longer, drawn out process. Unless he can guarantee to devote that much time when needed then it should not apply to him. If he can guarantee it then I have no objection at all :) --Skenmy(t•c•w) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

 * --Cspurrier 17:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * it doesn't matter either way.  —Fellow Wiki  Newsie 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure on replacing the other Brian, I heard from him a couple of days ago when I got a query on "What to see in Edinburgh" so he isn't totally uncontactable. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wilhelm 12:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made under a separate subject header on this page, or it can be brought up at the Admin's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Suspending the committee
. MessedRocker (talk) 04:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ARE YOU NUTS? --Brian McNeil / talk 10:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Vacancy -byelection
Per NZGabriel's resignation, do we wish to hold a by-election, or hold the seat open till the next general election in July? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 10:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The ArbCom was only really formed to deal with Neutraliser, so I have no preference either way. I would, however, be worried if we ended up needing to hold an election to use the committee. Perhaps a better question might be to informally ask who would stand. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't know who Neut was, or how batshit-insane-wrapped-in-tinfoil he was, read the link in the above section. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Where does say he is resigning? Cirt (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind . Cirt (talk) 11:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind standing to fill the vacant seat, if it doesn't require me submitting personal information to the Foundation (doesn't arbcom on most other WMF projects come packaged with CU and OS? Arbitration Committee mentions something about checkuser, but doesn't specifically state that the tool is needed for arbcom). On the other hand, the elections will come around in a few months, and arbcom never really gets much use nowadays anyway. Still, it wouldn't be good if the committee suddenly had to be used, and we had to hold elections in order to use it. In any case, I don't really have much of an opinion one way or the other. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  13:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a requirement that you identify to the Foundation to stand for arbcom - but I wouldn't be opposed to that becoming a requirement. Checkuser is 'minimum 18', and separate from ArbCom - generally because we can't get the mass of voting locally to show clear support for CU. ArbCom, naturally, has to be decided by local people. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm ... well, after thinking it over a bit, I am of the opinion that it probably would indeed be best to appoint a filler to hold the seat for two months until the full elections come around; it's entirely possible some issue might come up between now and the elections and the committee will need to be used. Maybe we should hold an informal poll, just to see who would be interested in standing? <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  15:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the amount that the committee is used, I am of the opinion that the remaining members are capable of dealing with anything that will come up (but have no strong opinions either way). Last time someone resigned we did not have a by-election. 24.65.82.136 (user:Bawolff not logged in) 19:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree here. If anyone recalls, when arbcom was set up, it was only going contain five members; we ended up with six due to a tie in the first vote. In fact, I would suggest a change in the policy, which would state that a by-election would not be necessary if a vacancy occurs within 3 months of a general election. Provided there are at least five full members of the committee (thus allowing flexibility for these occasions when only one member resigns near election time). Thoughts? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, here's another possibility: why don't we hold the full elections for all six seats right now? Having them a month or so earlier shouldn't really make much difference, should it? <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think it is easiest and simplest to just have 5 seats until July 2009. Cirt (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

An election is due
Terms expire very doon. Elections are due very soon. Is anyone organising them? Computerjoe 's talk 22:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Water cooler/policy
I've started a proposal at Water cooler/policy to abolish ArbCom. I welcome discussion there. Computerjoe 's talk 23:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

- ArbCom resignation
Realistically, if the community would not trust me with CheckUser it would be highly inappropriate to continue as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

Whilst the committee is perpetually inactive, and I have argued fiercely that it should be maintained to avoid the disasters that beset Wikipedia prior to them initially setting up such, my presence on the committee would make any decision by such open to a challenge that may threaten the community.

As a consequence I am, with immediate effect, withdrawing from the committee and would, unless under only the most extreme of circumstances, ever stand as a candidate for such again.

I am, additionally, considering whether I should request removal of my 'crat privileges, and a vote of confidence over continuing to retain Adminship.

This incident over a diaster around Accredited Reporters has perhaps been one of the most damaging incidents I have seen in the over five years I have been involved with Wikinews. During the early time I was involved the project was, repeately, beset by the same moronic trolling; "tinfoil asshattery" that seems all-too-common on controversial issues over on Wikipedia. I have fought to avoid that here, along with the absurdly time-consuming abuse of policy and Assume Good Faith that sees 'pedia disputes drag on for months, if not years.

It does, realistically, seem as if the Wikipedia obsession with AGF and "being nice" is damaging this project; plus people are, indeed, failing to adequately review and copyedit. This will put our listing in Google News at risk, so it is up to the rest of the community to up their standards and make sure this does not happen.

Otherwise Wikinews may as well be rolled back into Wikipedia and here closed. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Election time...again
Well, its that time of year again. The seats held by my me, alongwith Blood Red Sandman, Cirt, Cspurrier, Tempodivalse will soon expire. As of Brianmc resignation, we also have one vacancy. We need Election Coordinators, etc. Just thought I would hightlight this on wiki Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian, this is already being discussed here; maybe move this over there to have discussion more centralised? Nice to see you around in editing, by the way Smile.png <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  13:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought there needed to be reminder here. Was meaning to link through but forgot. oops! Thanks Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Does This Exist
What does this exist? There is no need for this. Stewards and bureaucrat can be elected directly and should be.199.126.224.245 (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This exists mostly as a result of a historical dispute involving Neutralizer. This has nothing to do with stewards/b'crats, as b'crats are elected locally here, and stewards are handled at meta. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stewards and bureaucrats are not elected to handle dispute resolution. They have other quite precisely-defined roles. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Grumble

 * Grumble, grumble. I'm self-nommed over on WN:RfP. I assume the survival of this section here means WN:OVERSIGHT remains current. Therefore, ArbCom approval sought. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * That passage looks messed up. It seems to assume all members of Arbcom are expected to be assigned Checkuser Oversight routinely, and retain it after they leave Arbcom, but I don't think we've ever done that at Wikinews.  The whole page probably needs to be read through carefully and updates proposed.  Meanwhile, with the size of the project it seems unlikely anyone could get the requisite number of supporting votes without a majority of Arbcom, so it shouldn't be a problem in practice.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

election proposal '11
Just so we start thinking about it. I move that we set the following dates for Election 2011: The community must agree on all election procedures by July 1, and election committee members by July 10. Nominations will be accepted July 11–17. Questions and comments may be made during that time period, but no voting shall take place. Voting will take place from July 18–30. Since the incumbent members' seats expire on August 3th, the election committee must will declare the winners on about July 31st, and the new term begins after declaration. Should any case be before the arbcom at election time the current committee will continue to sit until that case has been heard. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Two thoughts.
 * I strongly recommend to the forthcoming election committee that there not be a special place set aside for "questions for all candidates". Such a place was set aside last year, for the first time.  Last year's election was heavily politicized —which is inappropriate, because arbcom are judiciary, not legislative nor executive— and emotionally exhausting to stand through.  From what I've been told, and from the evidence of earlier elections pages, previous elections were not like that.  I believe the creation of a special place for questions-for-all structurally induces such arduous and inappropriate politicization.
 * This is a ridiculously fine point given the extreme rarity of arbcom cases, but — presumably the current committee continues to sit after turnover only on cases that started under the current committee. That is, if a new case comes up after turnover it will be heard by the new committee, even if the current committee is still working on an old case.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your correct on the second point, only a case that is open before, or during election time will be heard by the old committee. The new committee will hear any new cases filed after 3 August. Also, Yeah, the question aspect is interesting. I am not to sure where i sit on that matter - but I am leaning to supporting having questions so people can make a informed vote. This is the reason I am proposing this so early - so we can get all this detail sorted out before they creep up on us! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * With one exception, there has always been a place set aside for questions to each candidate. Except for last year's election, though, that section has always been just before the votes for that candidate; thus, it was grouped with that candidate.  To ask a question of all candidates, one would have to ask it separately of each candidate.  If it really matters to you, you should be willing to do that, and you absolutely should be able to do that.  But, in the history of our arbcom prior to last year's election, nobody had ever chosen to ask a question of all the candidates.  The point I meant to make is that if one makes it trivially easy to ask a question of all the candidates, one guarantees a flood of such questions, and the consequences of such a flood are highly undesirable.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I re-propose as follows: The community must agree on all election procedures by July 1, and election committee members by July 10. The deadline for nominations is 2000UTC July 17th  Voting will take place from 2000 UTC July 18– 2000UTC 30 July.Questions and comments may be made during that time period. Since the incumbent members' seats expire on August 3th, the election committee must will declare the winners on about July 31st, and the new term begins after declaration. Should any case be before the arbcom at election time the current committee continues to sit after turnover on cases that started under the current committee. Any new case after turnover is for the new committee Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me :-). --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't even want to think about an ArbCom election right now ... can't we just shove it in a corner and forget about it for a few years? D:  — fetch · comms  02:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm unflagging this and starting a policy water cooler thread. --Pi zero (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


text: Category:User uk-1

title: Category:User uk-1


text: Template:GPL

title: Template:GPL


text:
User talk:67.208.235.61

Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other editing tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. Thank you. tempo divalse  13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:67.208.235.61


text: Category:GPL

title: Category:GPL


text:
User talk:70.146.65.146

Hi. Please refrain for making pages that are not news articles, as we are Wikinews. The article you created has now been deleted. If you'd like to experiment, please do so in the sandbox, where you can make editing tests without disrupting site operation. Thank you. tempo divalse  15:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:70.146.65.146


text:
Spain's unemployment rate surpasses 17 percent

April 24, 2009

According to official statistics, Spain's jobless rate reached 17.4%, with slightly more than four million people unemployed. The figures have doubled over the past twelve months, the National Statistics Institute reports.

The numbers are an increase over the previous jobless rate of 13.9%, which was revised in the fourth quarter of last year. Spain now has the highest level of unemployment in the European Union.

Recently, the Bank of Spain estimated that the unemployment rate in the country could go up to 19.4% by 2010.

"It is a terrible figure," said the secretary of state, Octavio Granado to local television, saying that 2009 was forecast to be the worst part of the recession. "So we are in the epicentre of the crisis. We are in the eye of the perfect storm," he said.

In an effort to revive the faltering economy, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has launched a 70 billion euro stimulus package aimed at creating tens of thousands of new jobs, primarily in the public works sector. Critics, however, say that further reforms are needed, such as lowering the costs of firing and hiring tenured staff.


text:
User:Storye book

Storye book's page

title: User:Storye book


text:
User talk:Storye book

tempo divalse  16:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Storye book


text:
User talk:Slandlsid

tempo divalse  19:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Slandlsid


text: Talk:Spain's unemployment rate surpasses 17 percent


text: Talk:At least 76 dead after two suicide bombings in Iraq


text:
Talk:Four bombings over two days leave more than 130 dead in Iraq

Befuddled
Sorry - I'm afraid I can't at the moment follow what's happened where and when - so I better just leave the article be. Sean Heron (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the title back, since it previously didn't make sense without the info that you just removed from the article. tempo divalse  21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I was slow to think of that :(. Sean Heron (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay - reading the BBC source a bit more closely - my title might not have been that far of - my understanding is there were two bombings yesterday (as described in the article here). And there were two suicide bombers today, but at the same location - so it's being spoken of as one event (but eg in the Al Jazeera source I had added as a "double bombing" ?

Anyhow, an update is warrented, as of now I think we're only reporting yesterdays news - I'd be happy if someone else could try to check the facts before reinstating my version (or a modification of mine). Sean Heron (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. What probably didn't help my understanding was that I saw that the article hadn't been changed since yesterday - so I automatically assumed the BBC source must be referring to yesterdays event "!mistake!"- course it was updated as well. wrong - I just had there article from today open and got mixed up...

Category
Hmm, I obviously didn't look at the categories when I was working on this - I think politics and conflicts would be more fitting than either crime and law, or disasters and accidents. But changing the category now is a no go I guess ?


text:
User talk:Kjell Førde

tempo divalse  21:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kjell Førde


text:
User talk:69.116.146.211

Hi. Please refrain from creating articles without any text or context, as you did at Ypatrick78 Cancer Foundation, they will be deleted quickly. If you would like to experiment with editing Wikinews, please use our sandbox, where you can make test edits without being disturbed. Thanks. tempo divalse  22:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:69.116.146.211


text:
Pirate Bay case: Internet group attacks websites in "Operation Baylout"

April 25, 2009

Anonymous, the loosely defined online activist group most known for organizing mass protests against the Church of Scientology, has begun a campaign against the websites of entities associated with the prosecution in the Pirate Bay Trial, Wikinews has learned.

Termed "Operation Baylout", the group claims that hundreds of volunteers are taking part in coordinated efforts to jam the websites of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry and MAQS, a law firm working with the prosecution in the Pirate Bay case. As of Friday evening MAQS's website read "Our website is currently under attack and we have therefore decided to shut it down until the attack ceases."

The group is also coordinating efforts to jam the fax lines of the MPAA's anti-piracy office and of prosecuting attorney Monique Wadsted.

Andrew Norton of Pirate Party International rejected the attacks, saying, "While we can't condone these acts, it does show there is a wealth of feeling that opposes the decisions and actions of this trade body. Perhaps if this trade group [the IFPI] was not so focused on increasing their members' short-term profits, and focused on long term growth and giving customers what they have wanted for the last 10 years, we would not all be in this situation now. However, if people really want to make a difference, and get a result, then they should be supporting their local pirate parties, which will give a lasting result, by providing a government that is more resistant to the lobbying efforts of the IFPI and their ilk."

While one participant told Wikinews that he or she had taken part in the Church of Scientology protests, and while websites announcing the attacks claim to be affiliated with Anonymous, the decentralized and informal nature of the group makes it difficult to verify whether the attacks are a "legitimate" Anonymous operation.

Some seven hundred to one thousand users took part in an April 20 distributed denial of service (DDOS) "raid" against the IFPI's website, taking it down for several hours.

The group makes use of Anonymous's tactics from Project Chanology in coordinating raids. Ideas for targets are proposed in open discussion forums on a range of websites, mainly spinoffs of 4chan, although both participants Wikinews spoke to expressed disdain for that site particularly. When an idea finds favor with a significant portion of the group, it quickly — sometimes within four hours — evolves and is elaborated through a number of IRC channels. As a plan develops, word is put out to other members, and when enough people are assembled, the members activate customized but rudimentary programs downloaded from popular anonymous upload sites such as RapidShare to their home computers. These programs, "Epic Fail Cannon" and "Bayloutlazer", execute a UDP ping flood against the target website. Most participants are by and large not computer experts, instead relying on the instructions and programming skills of others.

The group also coordinates its efforts through Anonymous's message boards and one message announced, "Do local coordinating for individual cells on their respective Chanology boards." Posters to those boards express common themes in support of The Pirate Bay: against censorship, for freedom of information and in personal concern about being jailed for internet piracy.

However, most participants are casual rather than dedicated members, involved "for lulz" — cheap entertainment at the expense of others.

One participant quoted to Wikinews the following statement from 888chan.org, a message board where the Baylout raids originated: "Project Chanology began as an online attack against Scientology because they fucked with our Internets. Nothing more. 2) It has since morphed into a caricature of itself, in which moralfags genuinely think it's all about destroying an evil cult. We couldn't care less about how evil they are except that they fucked with our Internets. 3) The lulz value of Project Chanology now lies in the fact that Anon has managed to personal army thousands of people into destroying our enemy for us. People will go to great lengths to participate and contribute to a "cause" when they don't know they're the victims of a very grand and subtle troll. The lulz is not in what they do but in the fact that they are being PA'd by Anons. This moralfag personal army in turn trolls everyone who takes them seriously, because they take themselves seriously, without ever being aware of the fact of the troll themselves. It's pretty slick tbh."

It is, however, entirely possible that this assertion is itself a bluff.

Coordinated attacks against Swedish government and media industry websites have become commonplace in retaliation for legal actions against The Pirate Bay.

The group plans its next raid to take place at 12:00 GMT on April 26, against the IFPI's Swedish website. Previous attacks on websites have been attributed to the same group. On January 20, 2008 Anonymous claimed responsibility for attacking the Church of Scientology's website which resulted in an arrest. In October 2008, Dmitriy Guzner, aged 18, admitted to the DDOS attack on the Church and pleaded guilty to computer hacking.


text:
Outbreak of swine flu in Mexico kills at least twenty, infects 1,000

April 24, 2009

According to Mexican health officials, an epidemic of swine flu has killed at least 68 people and infected a further one thousand inside the country.

Mexican health minister José Ángel Córdova said that the casualty rate appeared to be slowing down, and that there would be no plans to block off Mexican borders. “We’re dealing with a new flu virus that constitutes a respiratory epidemic that so far is controllable,” Córdova stated. He said that the disease had mutated from pigs and was transferred to humans at some point.

Museums and schools for seven million students near Mexico's capital were closed down in an effort to curb the epidemic, and the government has encouraged people with symptoms of the disease to take leave from work.

The outbreak has spread north to the United States, and US health authorities have reported that eight people were diagnosed with swine flu in Texas and California. However, these people have recovered.

“We are worried. We don’t know if this will lead to the next pandemic, but we will be monitoring it and taking it seriously,” said Dr. Richard Besser, the acting head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Dr. Besser suggested "containment is not very likely" in a telephone briefing on Friday.

Tests conducted by the World Health Organisation (WHO) found that the virus from a dozen patients was genetically similar to a new outbreak of swine flu, designated as H1N1.


text: Talk:Outbreak of swine flu in Mexico kills at least twenty, infects 1,000


text:
Almost 6,500 civilians killed in Sri Lanka, UN reports

April 25, 2009 Close to 6,500 civilians have been killed and many thousands more wounded in the past three months during heavy fighting in Sri Lanka, according to a report by the United Nations.

Earlier this year, the army launched a crackdown on the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) to oust them from their territory in the northeastern part of Sri Lanka, which the rebels have occupied for several years. The rebels have now been forced back to a small coastal strip, where about fifty thousand people have been trapped after the area was evacuated of 100,000 people.

Thangamuttu Sathyamurthi, a government health official in the war zone, reported that people were dying of starvation, and that there was a large deficit of medicine and food.

According to the medical relief group Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders), many of the people who had fled the conflict zone had gunshot and blast wounds.

The government has accused the Tamil Tiger rebels of using civilians as human shields, a claim that the rebels deny. The rebels have accused the Sri Lankan army of randomly shelling civilian areas.

The U.N. says that the rate of civilian deaths in the country has risen sharply. On average, 33 civilians were killed per day at the end of January. The number has now increased to an average 116 per day.


text:
User talk:Apokrif

tempo divalse  23:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Apokrif


text:
Comments:Outbreak of swine flu in Mexico kills at least twenty, infects 1,000

large scale mortality
Are there specialists out there who could offer some evaluation of the likeliness of this virus to result in human mortality on a larger scale? Governmental sources always keep in mind mass hysteria prevention, therefore I am not sure if a full picture and forecasts are presented. Comments on this news from professionals would be greatly appreciated. 65.160.28.32 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Emil

 * As an average person, and not an epidemiologist nor a medical specialist or anything of the sort, I would say that since people died already, that if it were to spread on a larger scale, more people would die... Since the people who have died are mostly between mid-20's to mid-40's, it'd be like the Spanish Flu in the victims chosen... 76.66.196.218 14:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Great more problems from Mexico. --KDP3 (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I dink dat dis heya swine floo be just govahment lahs


text:
Talk:Pirate Bay case: Internet group attacks websites in "Operation Baylout"

IRC discussion
[redacted per request of source]

PPI statement
Via IRC:

 "While we can't condone these acts, it does show there is a wealth of feeling that opposes the decisions and actions of this trade body. Perhaps if this trade group was not so focused on increaasing their members short-term profits, and focused on long term growth and giving customers what they have wanted for the last 10 years, we would not all be in this situation now"  oh, and if you can add this too "however, if people really want to make a difference, and get a result, then they should be supporting their local pirate parties, which will give a lasting result, by providing a government that is more resistant to the lobbying efforts of the IFPI and their ilk"

Review

 * Good work, its evident that a lot of research went into this. Quite often articles we publish about computers have contradictions in relation to the technical content (at least initially) It was a pleasant surprise to see an article about a technical subject that was well written, without any apparent inaccuracies. [[image:smile.png|20px]] user:Bawolff
 * Technical inaccuracies generally arise from following the mainstream media, and not knowing when they really need whacked round the head with a clue-by-four. But also, I can think of lots of Wikinewsies I'd hate to see try and describe something like the Tor network. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
It seems that it should be possible to dig up a quote from someone from the prosecution or MPAA or otherwise in favor of copyright protections that is opposed to the so-called "Operation Baylout". Please present both sides of the story fairly. --SVTCobra 02:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

"group"
Since Anonymous is not an activist "group," could you please put in a paragraph explaining that "Anonymous" is merely a nom de guerre that can be adopted by any person online who does anything anonymously and wants to remain anonymous? It's tiresome that people still get the impression that the kids posting pix of dead babies are the same people posting gay porn on MySpace accounts are the same people protesting Scientology are the same people in Operation Baylout. Yes, there is some overlap, but it's unclear and inaccurate to leave the impression that it's all the same "group." Thank you. --71.202.127.216 03:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above: the only thing that connects anonymous on the internet is that most of them come from the same cultural background. There are many different internet gatherings that use the term "Anonymous", as they are not a part of any specific organized group, such as the cDc. It has become a way of taking action without doing so under any name or affiliation. It certainly would help to make this article a bit more accurate. Relyt22 (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be rather difficult to explain the "Anonymous is a meme" within the article, can you offer any suggestions on how you'd reword? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


text: Talk:Almost 6,500 civilians killed in Sri Lanka, UN reports


text:
Talk:Russia ends "counter terrorism operation" in Chechnya

NPOV
A "counter terrorism operation" is what Russia calls it. There are certainly more views on the operations in Chechnya. While we can use "counter terrorism operation" we should also say what Chechnya called it. --SVTCobra 00:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Do you have any suggestions? It seems hard to find a "general" Chechen expression for it, because there are lots of "official statements" of the local president (and probably somewhere not so obvious inofficial ones by (some) Chechen inhabitants). --Angela H. (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Well, Wikipedia calls it the Second Chechen War and also mentions it as the War in the North Caucasus. --SVTCobra 10:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Maybe, it's because of the more or less strict rule in de.wn that I thought one should not "quote" Wikipedia. I can, of course, use Wikipedia as a source for background information. --Angela H. (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Using a term from Wikipedia such as "Second Chechen War" is not quoting Wikipedia. The reason for the ban on copying from Wikipedia on both en.wn and de.wn is because of incompatible licenses. --SVTCobra 17:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * No, as a regular contributor to de.wn I know the reason on de.wn is not only the incompatible licenses, but also that articles in de.wp do not require to be fully sourced. At least this has been used in thousands of discussions over there.
 * Well, one could also write "second Chechen war", but I have not found that term it anywhere else in the news headlines. --Angela H. (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * If you think that it is better, maybe you can move it again. --Angela H. (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * BTW: The "Second Chechen War" is mentioned also in the last paragraph (although not exactly with this wording, since the word "war" occurs already in the sentence before it), where the last sentence indicates that there the Russian operation in Chechnya can also be seen as such. --Angela H. (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Another question: What's the exact "status" of the article now? Nobody has filled in the form concerning the review, and it is not clear to me what will happen to the article. --Angela H. (talk) 09:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


text: Talk:At least 24 dead in clashes in central Kenya


text:
User talk:75.15.254.222

Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other editing tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. Thank you. tempo divalse  03:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:75.15.254.222


text:
Comments:Pirate Bay case: Internet group attacks websites in "Operation Baylout"

The term "participant" seems to be used rather vaguely here. Participants in what? Scientology protests, website attacks, or both? As I read it, it seems to refer to Scientology protesters who haven't taken part in website attacks. --129.241.151.44 04:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Nobody cares about mainstream media anymore. I don't know why it is a requirement of this site to cite it. I got the feeling people will go it alone, without mainstream media.
 * Its not a requirement of this site. In fact much of this article is based on irc conversations - which are definitly not "mainstream news sources" (or news sources whatsoever). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Crackpots? Heh, they've always been called out.

i would say that, as in all cases involving anon, motivation is irrelevant.

Co$ puppet/fake arrest
the 18yr old that was arrested by the scilons has a scapegoat they pull out of their closest,imo. I have seen no info on his trial and the arrest itself is no more then a press release by the scilons. this makes me think that they are trying to delcare a win even that the kid they have is nothing more then on of their own being used a posterboy or some BS. please consider that in how your article is worded. If you doubt the Co$ would do such a thing just look into their history.

How anonymous!
Since the Church of scientology includes training in knocking the hats off people at 50 paces, using gnarly 'OT Powerz' it's as reasonable to assume Scientology action behind every blown-off-hat as to assume that every 'anonymous' action by unnamed people claiming to be anonymous is from the same people who brought you the anti-Scientology activities that have been so much fun :)

Zinjifar

win

Why?
What do these people think they're going to accomplish by DDoSing some servers? Justice? Public opinion in their favor? Resolution of the case in favor of TPB?

What am I saying; they're just doing it because they think it's funny. They're basically TPing company property. I'd be quite all right with it if they were all caught and fined. Wtachi (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


text:
User:William915

See Wikipedia:User:William915

title: User:William915


text:
Talk:Royal Canadian Mint unveils world's largest gold coin

The article describes a one-ounce gold coin, listing its mass as 28 grams. This is incorrect. Gold coins are measured in Troy Ounces, not standard ounces. The correct mass should be 31.1 grams.


text:
Comments:Spain's unemployment rate surpasses 17 percent

Even before the recession, Zapatero has spain going down the drain.--KDP3 (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mainly on the plain with all the rain. Fephisto (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Australian Football League: Essendon defeat Collingwood in ANZAC Day match

OR and Broadcast
I watched the match on Seven Network --RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Review
--Brian McNeil / talk 08:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


text:
User talk:William915

tempo divalse  12:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your welcome.--William915 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:William915


text:
Comments:Almost 6,500 civilians killed in Sri Lanka, UN reports

fals news has fast feathers
it is better getting latest and true imformation with regards to make a serious statement
 * Criticism is welcome - can you state anything you reckon might be wrong ? Sean Heron (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

just lies!
Sri lanka has defeated terrorismand gained peace. it is a victory for all Sri Lankans of all races. so please do not underestimate this victory. If one does so he is a person who welcoms terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.43.140.80 (talk) 13:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Russia ends "counterterrorism operation" in Chechnya

What a ridiculously biased title. -- 24.191.234.242 13:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you put it ? 79.217.135.3 21:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just like they had declared the war to be over in 2000, right before another major violence wave. ~
 * Ah, I see - 'Russia declares end of counterterrorism operation ... ' would probably have been a better choice, you're right. Fraid it's too late now. (I was the Anon with the question above, by the way). Sean Heron (talk) 12:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Xcjing

Please don't advertise at Wikinews, as you did at Buy product from China directly to save money, it is considered spam, and your page has been deleted. Further spamming may result in your account being blocked from editing. Thank you. tempo divalse  14:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked.
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikinews' blocking policy because your account is being used only for spam, advertising, or promotion. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text to this page. tempo divalse  14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xcjing


text:
User:Music2611

Hi, I'm Music2611, a frequent collabrator to Wikipedia, and now also to Wikinews. Later.

title: User:Music2611


text:
English Football: Roundup for April 25, 2009

April 26, 2009

Scoring five goals in 22:44, Manchester United came back from a 0–2 deficit at the half to run out comfortable 5–2 winners over Tottenham Saturday in English Premier League action. With the victory, United moved three points clear of second-place Liverpool, with United having a game-in-hand. Liverpool earned a 3–1 victory over Hull City earlier in the day, allowing the Reds to hold the top position in the table for about two hours, before United reclaimed the top spot. Third-place Chelsea earned a narrow victory and fourth-place Arsenal is off until Sunday.

At Old Trafford, Darren Bent opened the scoring in the 29th minute and Luka Modrić added another three minutes later to put visitors two up over the champions. In the second half, United turned the tables quickly, scoring four goals in the first 25 minutes of the half. Cristiano Ronaldo put United on the board after Spurs keeper Heurelho Gomes unfairly challenged Michael Carrick inside the box. Wayne Rooney equalised for United in the 67th minute and added an assist a minute later when Ronaldo hit a diving header past Gomes. Rooney added an assurance goal three minutes later, before Dimitar Berbatov closed the scoring in the 79th minute after Gomes allowed a shot to slip out of his reach.

For Liverpool, Dirk Kuyt scored the winning goal in the 63rd minute to give the Reds a much needed three points in their quest for the Premier League title. Xabi Alonso opened the scoring for Liverpool, giving the visitors the lead for good. After Kuyt's goal, Hull pulled a goal back on a smash by Geovanni. Kuyt later added another in the 89 minute. The 3–1 victory game Liverpool a precious three points, enough to go ahead of United in the table on goal difference. The lead was short as United regained the spot with their victory in the late game.

Chelsea's narrow victory come when Salomon Kalou converted a Frank Lampard cross in the 55th minute. West Ham United had a chance to equalise with the Blues, but Chelsea keeper Petr Čech saved a Mark Noble penalty kick. The penalty was awarded when Kalou fouled Hérita Ilunga. Chelsea is now six points behind United and three back of Liverpool.

Fifth-place Aston Villa drew 1–1 at Bolton and sixth-place Everton fell 1–2 at home to Manchester City. Ashley Young scored for the Villians just before half-time and Tamir Cohen equalised on sixty minutes for Bolton. For Everton, Dan Gosling 90th minute goal would not be enough as goals from Robinho and Stephen Ireland put City over the top for good. The point for Villa put them two points clear of Everton. The victory moved Manchester City into the 9th spot in the table.

In other action, Fulham earned a 1–0 victory over Stoke City, enough to bump them up to the seventh spot in the table. West Bromwich Albion gained a convincing 3–0 victory over Sunderland, with goals from Jonas Olsson, Chris Brunt and Juan Carlos Menseguez.

Two games will be played Sunday as Arsenal hosts Middlesbrough in the afternoon and Blackburn Rovers hosts Wigan in the night game. One game will be played on Monday as Newcastle hosts Portsmouth.


text:
Talk:English Football: Roundup for April 25, 2009

OR Notes
Manchester United v Spurs: Watched most of the second half on Fox Sports Net, while watching most of the first half on a different channel. Saw all of the last four United goals.

All other games from BBC/EPL sources.

Calebrw (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Add cats
editprotected

Please add Category:Arsenal F.C. and Category:Chelsea F.C.. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

 * ✅ Tempodivalse [talk]  18:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


text:
English magistrate resigns over Twitter posts

April 26, 2009 Stephen Molyneux has resigned from his post of Justice of the Peace in Shropshire, England, after a fellow magistrate reported him for posting messages about a case on the social networking website Twitter.

Professor Molyneux, an IT consultant and former mayor of Oakengates, tweeted information about bail applications on an armed robbery case. He wrote 'just about to hear application from 3 robbers from Manchster as to whether to remand or not', '1st defendant. Conspiricy [sic] to rob TSB of £500,000. Good start - wrong previous convictions presented' and 'finished hearing bail. 3 refused for planning robbery of £480,000 from Tsb [sic] in Dawley, Telford'.

Molyneux claimed nothing that he said could have prejudiced a case and he only mentioned what had been discussed in open court. He also claimed he was trying to make the criminal justice system seem more transparent. He also stated he had never tweeted whilst in court, but only in the retiring room.

He resigned after he received a letter from the Shropshire Advisory Committee, which requested a meeting.


text:
Talk:English magistrate resigns over Twitter posts

Style fixes
Without putting this up for a formal review, I can say that the article needs a bit of context. Where is this taking place needs to be in the first paragraph and the first sentence if possible. Remember this is an international audience. Also, the title ("English magistrate resigns over Twitter") needs at least one word after Twitter. The title now makes it sound like he used Twitter to resign. Thanks Calebrw (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any better? Computerjoe (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Much. Calebrw (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Review
--Brian McNeil / talk 07:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


text:
User:LinguistAtLarge/monobook.js

mw.loader.load('https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:LinguistAtLarge/global.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

title: User:LinguistAtLarge/monobook.js


text:
User:LinguistAtLarge

LinguistAtLarge

title: User:LinguistAtLarge


text:
User talk:LinguistAtLarge

LinguistAtLarge

title: User talk:LinguistAtLarge


text:
American actress Bea Arthur dies at age 86

April 25, 2009

Beatrice Arthur, an American actress, died at the age of 86 on Saturday morning at her home in Los Angeles, California, according to a spokesperson. Arthur had been suffering from cancer for some time.

"She was a brilliant and witty woman. Bea will always have a special place in my heart," said Dan Watt, Arthur's spokesman for six years.

Born in New York City in 1922, Arthur was probably most famous for her role in the American TV series The Golden Girls, where she played Dorothy Zbornak, and her role in Maude. Both roles earned her Emmy Awards. She also won a Tony Award for her role in the Broadway musical Mame.

"Bea was such an important part of a very happy time in my life and I have dearly loved her for a very long time," said Betty White, one of Arthur's co-stars on The Golden Girls to Access Hollywood. Rue McClalahan, who co-starred with Arthur in both series, said she will "miss her courage [and] her voice".

Arthur was also an advocate for gay rights, saying she once considered a gay relationship after a bad divorce. "With all the improvements and all the people who've become so much more knowledgeable, there's still an enormous amount of vicious homophobia," said Arthur in a 2001 interview with Out Magazine.

On July 22, 2008, Estelle Getty, who also co-starred with Arthur on The Golden Girls, died after a battle with dementia.


text: Talk:American actress Bea Arthur dies at age 86


text:
Comments:American actress Bea Arthur dies at age 86

Thanks for being a friend Bea. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

RIP Bea...your career has been, and will always be, Golden. --  M  (speak/spoken) 23:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

R.I.P.--KDP3 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Was Bea Arthur gay? No! Just..."
Was Bea Arthur gay? No! Just because she advocated anti-phobia's and said she considered a gay relationship once, does NOT make her gay -- but a better human than many of us. The Lord did NOT say to do unto gays... He said to do The First AND Second Commandments! How are we to bring others into The Kingdom Of Heaven if we cannot set an example of Love first?! With Love, comes Patience, Forbearance,... The Lord gave us ALL the capacity to Love -- male or female, but with the forewarning that the physical act was reserved only for the Husband and Wife (one male, one Female); all others are friends (not sexual partners). Never did he say to act with hatred to those who chose not to Obey Him -- but the opposite: to Love our and His enemies, to put our earthly passions away, and continue to be Godly examples, in the Hope that others too may get a chance to enter The Kingdom Of God! —184.40.21.194 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


text:
Professor sought after three die in Georgia shooting

April 25, 2009

A University of Georgia marketing professor has allegedly killed three people and injured two others today in the southeastern United States.

The shooting took place approximately 12:25 p.m around the Athens Community Theater in the Athens-Clarke County, in the northeast part of Georgia.

Authorities suspect George Zinkhan in the shooting and have issued a nationwide alert for him and his 2005 red Jeep Liberty with Georgia license plate AIX1376.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) reports that two handguns were found at the scene.

Athens-Clarke County Police Captain Clarence Holeman reported that two others were injured by shrapnel, and the extent of their injuries is unknown. A discussion took place before an evening performance between the alleged shooter and one of the victims.

The AJC reports that the victims were Marie Bruce, 47, Ben Teague, 63, and Tom Tanner, 40. Clarke County coroner Sonny Wilson said Saturday night that all three were shot multiple times.

Bruce was the wife of the alleged shooter and president of the theater company, while the others were part of a production of Sherlock Holmes: The Final Adventure. Tanner was performing in the production, and Teague was a member of the production crew.

Police also report that Zinkhan was involved in an argument with an unidentified man before the shooting occurred.

According to Capt. Clarence Holeman of the Athens-Clarke County Police Dept., the two people wounded suffered non-life-threatening injuries and were taken to St. Mary's Hospital in Athens. Holeman also confirmed that both victims were injured by ricochet: one in the leg and one in the foot.

Zinkhan is reported to have left his two youngest children in the car while at theater, and then left to drop them off at the home of his his neighbor Robert Covington. Zinkhan reportedly told Covington that there had been an emergency and would be gone for about an hour.

"Our first thoughts are for safety of the university community and for prompt apprehension of the person responsible. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families of all those who have been affected," University of Georgia President Michael F. Adams said in an official statement.

Matt Hardy, 22 years old, was at the scene of the crime, and had seen his friend Tom Tanner being shot twice. His father John Hardy commented to reporters that "at 22 you're not supposed to watch people die." Matt Hardy spoke to investigators and departed with his parents.

The university sent text messages and e-mails to students advising them of the potentially dangerous situation.

Police are requesting that anyone who comes in contact with the suspect dial 911 and exercise extreme caution. Zinkhan has been described as a 57-year-old Caucasian with a goatee-style beard and full mustache. He has blue eyes and brown hair worn above the ear according to his most recent photograph. He was reported to have been wearing blue shorts with a polo shirt at the time of the shooting, and he may be driving the red Jeep.


text:
Talk:Professor sought after three die in Georgia shooting

I'm not so happy with the full name (though this is somewhat review independent) - I'm guessing we don't have a hard and fast rule for this, but seeing he's only a suspect so far (admittedly with a high likelyhood him being the shooter), I'd rather not state it in full (hmm - though with the other info, then only no name would make halfway any sense...)

For update story
When the story gets updated for April 26 news: I found an interesting tidbit. The AP says the alleged killer has houses in both Austin, Texas and Amsterdam. Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-professor26-2009apr26,0,7463269.story

NOTE: This cannot be added to this story as it past the dateline. A new article will have to be created for April 26 news. Calebrw (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit protected request
editprotected

Category:Georgia is a disambiguation category, and so should be Category:Georgia (U.S. state). Bencherlite (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Relyt22~enwikinews

tempo divalse  23:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Relyt22. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Relyt22~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Relyt22~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Music2611

tempo divalse  23:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Music2611. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Music2611~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Music2611


text:
Wikinews:2009/April/27

 category=Published category=April 27, 2009 notcategory=Disputed notcategory=No publish suppresserrors=true stablepages=only showcurid=true

fr:Wikinews:2009/avril/27 it:Wikinotizie:2009/aprile/27 ja:ウィキニュース:2009年/4月/27日 zh:Wikinews:2009年/4月/27日

title: Wikinews:2009/April/27


text:
Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2009/18

Welcome to the Wikinews World News Quiz, giving you a chance to test your knowledge on this week's news.

Last Updated: April 26, 2009

title: Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2009/18


text:
User talk:94.43.40.216

Hi. Please don't spam Wikinews, as you did at 77geo-king.piczo.com, your page has now been deleted. Further spamming may result in your being blocked from editing. Please use the sandbox for any editing tests you'd like to make. Thank you. tempo divalse  00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:94.43.40.216


text:
User talk:Gyu-gzas

tempo divalse  02:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gyu-gzas


text:
Comments:Professor sought after three die in Georgia shooting

"But academics are essential!" they screeched. "You must protect their rights!" Yeah. Now they're killing our citizens. Great job, namby-pamby limp-wristers. Hope you're happy. 206.74.5.136 03:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh? That just doesn't make sense. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me but i may be wrong but I believe 206 is trying to say that since in his view point all Collage professor are liberals that demands rights and now they are killing people and he is very mad. --KDP3 (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, 206 shouldn't have a high school diploma based on the level of articulateness. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True.--KDP3 (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the word you are groping blindly in the dark for is "articulicity". 206.74.5.136 18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's "crackpot".


text:
Talk:Salvage operation begins to retrieve black boxes from Adam Air Flight 574

There's a grammar error: Why don't we change the it's to its? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Brian McNeil / talk 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Cpryby

Welcome
--Brian McNeil / talk 07:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cpryby


text:
User:Myrecovery

I am currently active on English Wikipedia.

title: User:Myrecovery


text:
User talk:Myrecovery

I am currently active on English Wikipedia.

Welcome
Computerjoe (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Myrecovery


text:
User talk:Bdray1980

Welcome
Computerjoe (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bdray1980


text:
User talk:122.167.10.52

Hallo. Please don't spam Wikinews, as you did at Jobs; your page has been deleted. Further spamming may result in your being blocked from editing. If you wish to experiment with editing, please do so at the sandbox. Thank you. tempo divalse  13:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:122.167.10.52


text:
User talk:68.38.147.199

In addition, this page has been protected from editing to prevent further abuse. tempo divalse  13:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:68.38.147.199


text:
User talk:Thomas Lang

Computerjoe (talk) 14:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thomas Lang