text:
File talk:IM IN UR WIKI RVRTING UR EDITS lolcat.jpg

Best LOLCat Evar! Tadpole256 (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Mark alba

-- 16:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Mark alba


text:
Thread:Comments:Security forces open fire on anti-government protestors in Syria/Comments from feedback form - "This news is outdated, no newe..."

This news is outdated, no newer news about deraa the southern city as military is moving into the area which is disconnected from telephony network and power


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (10)

Well... I'm not a dickhead redneck, but after studying Islam, watching how Muslims act over someone burning a Qur'an and just studying history I've realized that Islam is not truly a religion. It is more of a system of government. How many Christian Republics are there in the world right now? Okay, now look up how many Islamic Republics there are in the world. If you really think about it, Muhammad's Qur'an is fickle. At least with the Bible it had multiple authors, over an extended period of time, so there was no central author, however with the Qur'an it's a completely different story (No pun intended). One man wrote it, and he said that this book was God's word, word-for-word. This is just strange to me, it seems like he just wanted people to think he spoke with God so that he could have a taste of power. Unfortunately people believed him, the lie spread, and is now a "real" religion. If I'm not mistaken to Qur'an says that God placed mountains on the Earth to hold it in place, but I find two things wrong with this. 1) It supports a flat earth, if the earth needs to be held in place it would have to be laid out on something (I like to imagine something like a world map being laid on a table with knives holding it in place, knives taking the place of mountains), and it's fairly obvious that the world isn't flat 2) If you look at mountains and how they were formed, they weren't placed here, they were pushed up out of the ground. So, I'm done now. I'm sure I'll be called an ignorant asscrack for this, but all that says to me is that people are uneducated themselves and that they're Islamic Sympathizers (most likely). Anywho, try to tear me apart as you will now, prove me wrong, call me horrible names, call me ignorant, do what you must, I just hate that you'll never understand and grasp the fact that you're wrong.


text:
User talk:Glinchuk Dina

-- 17:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Glinchuk Dina


text:
User talk:Leon bz

-- 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leon bz


text:
User talk:Tvabdou

-- 17:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tvabdou


text:
User talk:Torcida Canário Choop

-- 17:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Torcida Canário Choop


text:
User talk:Come2al

-- 17:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Come2al


text:
User talk:Dimoncikru

-- 17:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dimoncikru


text:
User talk:Cavol4

-- 17:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cavol4


text:
Category:Cayman Islands

fa:رده:جزایر کیمن fr:Catégorie:Îles Caïmans

title: Category:Cayman Islands


text:
User talk:JV049Alwi

-- 17:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JV049Alwi


text:
User talk:BigMan43

-- 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:BigMan43


text: User talk:PFMuffinStrike457

title: User talk:PFMuffinStrike457


text:
Thread:Comments:Tornadoes damage hundreds of Missouri homes, force closure of airport/Comments from feedback form - "very detailed and specific :)"

very detailed and specific :)


text:
User talk:Maria.martelli

-- 18:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maria.martelli


text:
User talk:Franek Vetulani

-- 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Franek Vetulani


text:
User talk:Tuuu morochitaah

-- 18:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tuuu morochitaah


text:
User talk:KnightRider592

-- 19:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KnightRider592


text:
User talk:Lampasas535353

-- 19:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: plane off runway
Hi Lampasas535353 and welcome to Wikinews. I notice you're reporting this, and I hadn't heard anything. Can you please inform me of which airport this has taken place at, since I have access to Live Air traffic control and tower services, and may be able to record audio between ground, tower and the airside services? Thanks! BarkingFish (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Midway, story has now shown up on Chicago WGN.

title: User talk:Lampasas535353


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2011/April

Wreckage, victims of Air France Flight 447 found
TUFKAPP this article, with this comment. I reverted the publication. --Pi zero (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On what basis? You were unable/unwilling to review the article, but able/willing to unpublish it. If the article failed to meet a review standard I could understand this. -  Amgine | t 19:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It *is* against policy to publish what one has written. I personally think self-publishing ought to be allowed, but at this time the policy says it's illegal [EDIT: against the rules]. See Reviewing articles. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See WN:PG:
 * ''How are policies created? Means Most Wikinews policies are developed through consensus. Consensus might be developed through discussion and polls, but more often it develops through established practice. In most cases the policy is not even written formally, but is simply the community norms which have developed over time.
 * Changing policy, especially one which has been talked to death as this one has been, can be as simple as changing how things are done. That article was left in the review queue for more than 24 hours. It can and should be self-published if no one else is going to do so. -  Amgine | t 19:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 * It says in the article writing rules: "Every article must be reviewed by an independent reviewer prior to publication." Isn't this to ensure that the article meets the review standard? The article's author is not providing an "independent" review, so it seems to me that the article has not been reviewed yet. A reviewer is not allowed to perform post-publish revisions - "any Reviewer who performs an edit that would not have been permissable to an article that had been archived under WN:ARCHIVE must not sight that revision, and await sighting from another Reviewer." Given this strict oversight rule,  it is right for an editor to publish his own article? I am seeking clarification. I hope  that's OK that I ask.   Mattisse (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From Reviewing articles

Aren't these the policies to be followed? I personally wouldn't want to review my own articles, as I know that I am not giving them "independent" reviews. Mattisse (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Illegal is far, far too strong a term to use here; Wikinews is not a law-making, or enforcing body. I sympathise with Amgine's comments; this is from a generally-trusted, and established, contributor. An effort to actually review instead of unpublish would have been far nicer. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @brianmc, maybe so, I was just trying to vary my sentence structure a bit. But I don't wish to argue semantics, you know what I meant.
 * @Amgine, it would be very confusing if written policy is different from de-facto, accepted policy. If there is indeed consensus to allow self-publish (and that point is debatable), the appropriate pages should be changed. Policies are useless if they're not going to be followed as-written. (For this reason I oppose WN:IAR, it is a very easy way of circumventing a policy when it is not convenient to follow it.) But in the meantime, the self-publication is clearly against the current rules and is grounds for revocation of reviewer privileges. (That's not to say I disagree with TUFKAAP's actions, I'm just saying rules should be clear - and followed.) Tempodivalse [talk]  19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

 * This is about self-review, and consequent pushing to GNews etc. It has nothing to do with the proposal for an unreviewed form of "publication" (which I have conditionally opposed, but that's a distraction here).  Self-review is not consistent with our journalistic integrity as a project; yes, the conditions of our GNews feed come into it, but those conditions aren't out of the blue either.  Self-review is a betrayal of the trust placed in reviewers, which is why (as Tempo points out) it is dereviewer-worthy.
 * Note, WN:IAR specifically names independent review as nonnegotiable, so it does not offer a possible justification for the action. --Pi zero (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see both sides here, on which basis I'd urge absolutely everyone to go vote for the GNSM bug. If that's fixed the flexibility around formal review vs casual review vs self publish increases dramatically. Options otherwise not open to us come into play and screwups can be retracted. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I've voted for that or not. Linky please? A site map for Google News to follow is of paramount importance. Gopher65talk 11:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ask Bawolff and/or Amgine for the bugzilla number, I don't have it to hand I'm afraid. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 21919 (Note well it does give us more flexibility, it is not a pre-requisite to doing a mixed reviewed/non-reviewed system, since we can already specify stuff on the main page as being stuff for google to not follow. Also voting isn't overly taken into consideration by the devs [but it certainly doesn't hurt]). Bawolff ☺☻ 13:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't create an account just to vote either, since that's bad form. Gopher65talk 15:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm somewhat doubtful anyone would care if people created accounts just to vote (provided you only created one account for yourself, making sockpuppets to vote on bugs would be just plain stupid). Voting kind of goes off to the side where no one really notices or cares (especially for this type of bug where review is pending. The very few people who look at votes, look at votes to get ideas for things to do (afaik), people who review extension code generally don't have that problem ). If you do vote for it you will be emailed if there are any updates to the bug. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Simple two-tiered review policy
This was suggested to improve the speed of publications. I've created a draft at User:Mono/Two-tiered_review_system. Please comment. --theMONO 03:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

 * The proposal as I understand it is that for publication articles are checked for copyright but not accuracy. If it's not checked for accuracy, that'd be a blog rather than a news site; and even if that weren't so, if the sources haven't been consulted thoroughly enough for fact-checking, they haven't been checked thoroughly enough for copyvio or neutrality either.  (Even though some kinds of non-neutrality are superficially obvious, neutrality cannot be determined unless you know what the facts are.)

 * Also note that deferring "peer review" until archiving (though apparently both tiers of reivew you're suggesting are by uninvolved parties, so calling only the second "peer review" seems odd) is late review, which has been opposed on the grounds that changes necessary to pass such a "peer review" cannot be made neutrally after the story is no longer fresh. --Pi zero (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation of acronyms
Our policy at the moment regarding the capitalisation of acronyms is that it is up to the original author of an article. However, this can lead to stories about Nascar and NASCAR (for example) ending up next to each other on the Main Page, and I think this looks unprofessional. Hence, I think we need to add something about this to the style guide.

Personally, I would prefer that acronyms pronounceable as a word (e.g. Nascar, Nasa) be set in lower-case, with only the first letter capitalised, while initialisms (e.g. BBC, CBS) be set in all-caps. I think so primarily because doing otherwise (especially with long acronyms, such as NASCAR) looks like shouting, and is somewhat overwhelming.

However, I just want us to have some guideline on this, rather than sticking with the unprofessional per-article hodge-podge we have ATM. DEN DODGE  22:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My style details include a note on acronyms drawn from several news style guides. The relevant part is "do not use ... pronounceable forms of initialisms". In other words, an acronym is always an acronym, in all caps. -  Amgine | t 05:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Abolish the Arbitration Committee?
The terms for the ArbCom seats will expire in several months. However, I'd like to propose to remove the committee altogether. (This is a U-turn on my previous stated opinions, yes, but I have reconsidered my beliefs about the subject.) Some arguments for removal:

 * ArbCom has not accepted but two cases, the last one was half a decade ago. No dispute in the meantime has ever gotten to the level where the ArbCom could have been called in, and we've had plenty of heavy-duty fights.
 * It is unnecessary bureaucracy. Cf. the userbox policy: the community was shown to be strongly in favour of repealing it, but it had to formally reversed through the ArbCom before anything could take effect. This rule-mongering does not further Wikinews' mission goals.
 * In similar vein to the above point, the ArbCom is not obliged to follow community consensus and could, theoretically, impose a rule that the community at large does not want.
 * Many of the ArbCom members are active in they everyday workings of Wikinews, so they would likely be active participants in any dispute, and should it rise to AC level, they wouldn't be neutral enough to take an active stance as an arbitrator.
 * "But something could happen!", which appears to be the major argument against, isn't a logical reason to retain the committee. If ArbCom hasn't been used for so long, it's improbable that it ever would need to be. Even if it would, the tightly-knit, small community would be much better off deciding things by themselves with community consensus. Also, there is just as much chance of ArbCom being deadlocked with opposing opinions in a dispute as the community.
 * The election process takes up precious time which would be much better spent on improving mainspace.

Also please read the arguments made the last time this was proposed.

Open to thoughts. There seems to be an affinity for voting, but I'd prefer some discussion to take place first. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Votes
Forget the discussion, One word. - Short, sweet and to the point. We can't just re-form an ARBCOM if all hell breaks loose. Forget it, nuh-uh, not gonna happen. Go have a coffee. BarkingFish (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read my request not to vote immediately, or any of the arguments I presented? "But something might happen someday!", with no suggestion as to what, isn't a strong argument. Why do you believe ArbCom will help anything if "all hell breaks loose"? Even it could become deadlocked and be useless, too. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a lot more effort (and drama — imagine how many H3's the discussion would have) to dissolve ArbCom than it is to hold elections every so often. As it's not used, it doesn't really matter whether it stays or goes, so status quo wins out. — μ 22:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tempodivalse, it wasn't a "request", you expressed a preference. My preference is for them to remain. The ARBCOM is a required part of the dispute resolution process, and whether in use or not at this time, saying that it could be needed in the event of, say, a major dispute for example, is sufficient in my book for saying we keep this. Just because the ARBCOM could become deadlocked, doesn't mean it will. It simply means we need to find a few more people to sit on the committee so that we have an odd number of arbs, and therefore can't reasonably be deadlocked. BarkingFish (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to amend the MOS to include convention on Foreign people's names
I'd like to suggest an amendment to the Manual of Style, specifically to this section, covering peoples names. I notice we have general guidelines regarding naming people, but as a global news source, we should really have some information regarding the naming of foreign persons by the convention of their country. For example, in parts of Asia (China and Japan that I know of), the convention is Family name, First name. Should we include a seperate section in the MOS to include details like this for future contributors? BarkingFish (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * — μchip08 16:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On reflection, this could lead to second-guessing sources of a synthesis article. I may end up opposing this.
 * In the particular case, all the sources say "Yao Jiaxin". I'd think "Yao" would be the surname; cf. Yao (surname).  --Pi zero (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment; I've amended the proposal above, to clarify the terms of what I was proposing. BarkingFish (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * —this seems useful. On an almost, but not quite, entirely unrelated note, do we need a guideline for transcription of names in foreign scripts (there are, for example, a number of different ways of spelling Gadaffi—do wee need to be consistent, or should it be up to personal choice)? DEN  DODGE  18:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with Ghadhdhffy's name is that there exists a lack of standardization of transliterating spoken Arabic to the Latin alphabet. Qadhaffi's name can spelled many ways. — Mike moral  ♪♫  07:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly what wording do you want to add? I'm concerned about instruction creep.  BTW, it is already implied by the existing text that one follows practice of the area in question:
 * On subsequent mentions, mention only the person's significant name without it being a wikilink. For western names this is the last name; many Asian countries use the first name for subsequent mentions.
 * (Also, to avoid (again) instruction creep, I suggest we leave the standardized-name issue well enough alone in the Style Guide.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The style guide is already bloated. I actually think we ought to trim the existing material. The existing text provided by pizero should be sufficient, imho. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent summary, Pi Zero. One point: there is no such thing as a "foreign name" on en.WN: our contributors are from everywhere. There's a tradition of respecting the local conventions of the region where the story takes place within the SG; that would clearly apply to name conventions. (I don't quite agree with Tempodivalse, though nearly. The SG is getting large, and getting into very fine details which make it difficult to be neutral/unbiased. We should consider trimming unnecessarily precise or biased elements.) -  Amgine | t 07:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 * We should split things: Keep the SG for vital stuff, and have an 'advice dump' of how to handle loads of specific issues, without it being policy to follow or even read such. I'm thinking of Amgine's massive userspace work here. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * <Adds 30 minute block of expanding SG Details to daily schedule.> -  Amgine | t 16:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No change is needed; "many Asian countries use the first name for subsequent mentions." covers a substantial amount of the apparent issue here. No Feeping Creaturitis please! With regard to BRS' comment above, I tend to think there should be two documents: a full-blown Manual of Style, and a more condensed Style Guide. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:JoshE3

-- 19:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JoshE3


text:
User talk:Vipera18

-- 19:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vipera18


text:
User talk:Somu.ion

-- 19:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Somu.ion


text:
User talk:Htgyebback

-- 20:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Htgyebback


text:
User talk:KITT!ES ON F!RE

-- 20:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KITT!ES ON F!RE


text:
User talk:TITT!ES ON F!RE

-- 20:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Block
 wacky wace  20:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:TITT!ES ON F!RE


text:
User talk:Sigma1986

-- 20:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sigma1986


text:
User talk:Hachacon

-- 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hachacon


text:
User talk:TheLaki12

-- 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:TheLaki12


text:
User talk:Turktron

-- 20:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Turktron


text:
User talk:Juanfer84

-- 20:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Juanfer84


text:
User talk:Etm56

-- 20:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Etm56


text:
User talk:Expected001

-- 21:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Expected001


text:
User talk:Mortgage101

-- 21:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BarkingFish (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mortgage101


text:
User talk:Newtang

-- 21:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Newtang


text:
User talk:Ohlz

-- 21:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ohlz


text:
User talk:Akalchhe

-- 21:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Akalchhe


text:
User talk:Sacamol

-- 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sacamol


text:
User talk:Achawan

-- 21:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Achawan


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (11)

No, I don't want to kill them all (how did you even get this idea?). Keeping them away from western Countries is good enough.


text:
User talk:DARTORIUS

-- 22:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DARTORIUS


text:
User:Microchip08/beat

@

title: User:Microchip08/beat


text:
User talk:Big Syd

-- 22:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Big Syd


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (12)

I'm pretty sure the terrorists disagree. Note however that such a group as the NLFT is more of a political terrorist group than a religious. Of course there is a big influence of Christianity in it, but compare it to a group like al qaeda, with barely any political purpose. Their goal is to kill us for not being muslims, not declaring the independence of a territory as the NLFT.

And even if you take into account the terrorists doing it strictly for religious motives, like Joseph Kony, the numbers are just incomparable. How many die every month because of Christian terrorists? perhaps a hundred at the very worst. Islam on the other hand (despite being a less numerous religion):

Monthly Jihad Report March, 2011 Jihad Attacks: 146 Countries: 15 Religions: 5 Dead Bodies: 766 Critically Injured: 1190 (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)

The muslim population in my country is 0.00014% of the total. Yet a few weeks ago a muslim guy entered a school and killed 12 children. Christians are at 89.2%, but children being shot in the name of Jesus are unheard of here.


text:
User talk:Armorad

-- 22:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Armorad


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (13)

So, lemme get your stats straight. Five deaths from Islamic extremists in March, versus "perhaps a hundred" from Christian extremists. Hmmm.

NLFT may brand itself as declaring independence as a main cause, but believe me, they want to do it to establish a "Kingdom of Jesus" - hardly non-religious.

Of course you don't see Christian attacks in majority Christian countries, because they are not a minority there and only minorities are persecuted.


text:
User talk:Dharresusf

-- 23:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dharresusf


text:
Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikinews users

de:Kategorie:Benutzer gesperrt es:Categoría:Usuarios expulsados fr:Catégorie:Utilisateur bloqué indéfiniment tr:Kategori:Vikihaber:Süresiz engellenen kullanıcılar


text:
User talk:Copi-o

-- 23:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Copi-o


text:
User talk:Virginia terpin

-- 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Virginia terpin


text:
User talk:Lore.vane

-- 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lore.vane


text:
User talk:Alejandrito 01

-- 00:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alejandrito 01


text:
User talk:MarcelaSoares

-- 00:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MarcelaSoares


text:
User:Amgine/BarkingFish bits request

— remove SysAdmin
BarkingFish has an admirable record as an active contributor to the project. However xe has also been involved in some conflict with community members, in particular over a quickness to block, and as often indefinitely as not. In a recent IRC conversation xe asserted the decision to indef block was solely xyr right, as it was intrinsic to being an admin.

For this reason, and solely this reason, I would prefer if xe no longer had the responsibility for blocking users.

The specific event which pushed this issue to the forefront was the indef block on for 'trolling' in the comments namespace, a portion of Wikinews set aside for the expression of personal opinions. The users non-comments page edits are minor copy edits which improved Wikinews's articles. Prior to being indef blocked by BarkingFish the user had never been blocked, had never received a warning from any community member.

There were, until very recently, two indef blocks by BarkingFish which were not supported in policy (there may be other policy-based justifications not alluded to in the block summaries): These were hardly the most egregious bad blocks in the history of en.WN, but the response to them is exemplary: BarkingFish blocked without considering policy, and would have left the blocks in place forever if xe had not been called on them. Admins should be trusted to do the right thing the first time, not only when they are 'caught'. I no longer have that trust in BarkingFish's judgement for blocks. -  Amgine | t 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * as a sock puppet. There is no evidence on-wiki, including WN:CU, this account is a sock puppet.
 * for an unacceptable user name (Promotional/COI). Promotional/COI is not a part of Wikinews's username policy.

Stats

 * Previous requests: RfA

title: User:Amgine/BarkingFish bits request


text:
User talk:Pompeycat123

-- 00:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pompeycat123


text:
User talk:Dan35172

-- 00:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dan35172


text:
User talk:Nicola9104

-- 00:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nicola9104


text:
User talk:Uuor

-- 00:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Uuor


text:
Comments:New Caledonia prepares for 2011 South Pacific Games

Comments from feedback form - "everything that you have prepa..."
everything that you have preparing is in accordance to my poiunt of view as one the ahtlete which will be representing its own country............ —202.80.46.35 (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Saxydayle

-- 01:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Saxydayle


text:
User talk:Ozzcar15120000

-- 01:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ozzcar15120000


text:
User talk:Marina Rosa de Andrade

-- 01:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marina Rosa de Andrade


text:
User talk:Aminah binhabib

-- 01:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aminah binhabib


text:
User talk:EliteShnipes392

-- 01:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:EliteShnipes392


text:
User talk:Jacksonp15

-- 02:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jacksonp15


text: Talk:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island


text: Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island


text:
User talk:Bheeshaj

-- 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bheeshaj


text:
User talk:Alejanm

-- 02:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alejanm


text:
Thread:Comments:Israel to build new settlements in West Bank/Comments from feedback form - "of course Israel is not buildi..."/reply (2)

THE ISRAELIS HAVE MY ADMIRATION ALSO...I WISH I WAS ONE INSTEAD OF A SOUTH AFRICAN. 156.8.251.250 (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Nikapnz

-- 02:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nikapnz


text:
User talk:Plurry

-- 02:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Plurry


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (14)

BRS, you just used the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy. Example: "No true Scotsman would *ever* do, therefore anyone who does that isn't a Scotsman". Details here: No true scotsman.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Both "Scottish" and "Muslim" are extremely broad words. Attempting to artificially narrow those words based on personal opinion is what causes this logical fallacy. I might say, "no true Scotsman would eat icecream!", but icecream is in no way related to being Scottish. Saying "No true Muslim is a terrorist" is just as stupid. It is entirely possible to be both a "true" Muslim and be a terrorist. To be Muslim merely means that you believe in Allah and accept the words of the Prophet Mohammed and the Koran as truth (and 2 other holy books too, usually). That's it. You can do both of those things and *still* be a suicide bomber. Just like you can have 3000 years of Celtic ancestry in Scotland and still like icecream (or **** sheep, or be a Jew, or believe in unity with England, or hate alcohol, or whatever else is seen as not "Scottish" enough:P).


text:
User talk:Ruslananddogs

-- 02:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ruslananddogs


text:
Thread:Comments:Renowned Indian guru Śrī Satya Sai Baba dies aged 84/Distorted fact

You seem to have posted a distorted fact in the line "In 1993, six people "died violently in the spiritual leader's private rooms,". These people were intruders who wanted to attack Sai Baba. In the ensuing scuffle with few inmates of the ashram and the police, there were 3-4 deaths. Picking your line from 'THE GUARDIAN' doesn't make it true.


text:
User talk:Seriousjoker007

-- 03:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Seriousjoker007


text:
User talk:Vicojambati

-- 03:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vicojambati


text:
User talk:Astrobull

-- 03:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Astrobull


text:
User talk:Cmrosette

-- 03:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cmrosette


text:
Thread:Comments:All US states could have smoke-free laws by 2020/Proof

This article fails to provide any definitive proof that second hand smoke kills other than vague allusions to "studies," while at the same time presenting the other side of the debate as only concerned with some vague notion of liberty. To be as fair as seems appropriate for a story touted as news, they ought to have included either citations for whatever studies they deemed proof, or admitted that while some studies suggest a correlation between second hand smoke and death, their scientific accuracy has been called into question since their publication. Here I am thinking of the several studies criticized in the book "Sorry Wrong Number."

Overall, the article was a poor attempt at fairness. I ask not that the author be objective, for such a thing is impossible. I simply ask that they do a better job of either citing their sources, as good journalists ought, or at the very least admit that what they assert as truth is in fact far from regarded as universal.


text:
User talk:Velerofonte

-- 04:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Velerofonte


text:
User talk:Easyyamada

-- 04:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Easyyamada


text:
User talk:Tuxedoer

-- 04:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tuxedoer


text:
User talk:Dan3660

-- 05:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dan3660


text:
User talk:Tblack93

-- 06:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tblack93


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (15)

No, I disagree. I view religions ('christianity', 'Islam') as broad concepts covering a range of beliefs. For example, amongst Christians it is now quite popular as I understand to reject all mainstream interpretations of any given concept and form an individual view - but people who do thus are still as Christian as someone who, say, takes the Bible literally, or a stereotypical Catholic or Protestant, etc.

I feel when faiths are twisted into extremist things they are so far removed from the original as to be something new entirely. Thus, I don't actually categorise 'Islamic terrorism' as anything to do with Islam proper but rather as an entire faith all on its own, based on Islam.

In this light, I feel my logic holds regardless of wether you agree with it.


text:
User talk:Moods 001

-- 06:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Moods 001


text:
User talk:ASHUTOSH MISHRA

-- 07:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ASHUTOSH MISHRA


text:
User talk:Mearisan

-- 07:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mearisan


text:
User talk:A.ylie

-- 07:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:A.ylie


text:
User talk:Ahmet yasin4082

-- 07:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ahmet yasin4082


text:
User talk:Thirugnanam~enwikinews

-- 08:10, 27 April 2011 (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 Thirugnanam. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Thirugnanam~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 23:22, 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) 06:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thirugnanam~enwikinews


text:
User talk:PilotLife

-- 08:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PilotLife


text:
User talk:Mebjas

-- 08:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mebjas


text:
User talk:Jlpadillajr

-- 08:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jlpadillajr


text:
User talk:Youssefgreen

-- 08:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Youssefgreen


text:
User talk:Станислав Николаев

-- 08:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Станислав Николаев


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (16)

I'm bored of this argument. Burn as many religous texts as you want mate, spend your time rounding up people that have settled in your country and kick them out, good luck.


text:
User talk:Zulfi47

-- 08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zulfi47


text:
User talk:Giorgi dgvareli

-- 09:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Giorgi dgvareli


text:
User talk:Gailordjanson

-- 09:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gailordjanson


text:
User talk:AndriyPopov

-- 09:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AndriyPopov


text:
User talk:MaTroX

-- 10:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MaTroX


text:
User talk:OnesimusUnbound

-- 10:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:OnesimusUnbound


text:
User talk:Quangdaotran

-- 11:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Quangdaotran


text:
User:Microchip08/todo

Things that need doing:

review
category=review

delete
 category=Speedy_deletion redirects=include

aband
 category=Abandoned redirects=include notcategory=Speedy deletion addfirstcategorydate=true

stale
 category=Disputed notcategory=Abandoned notcategory=Speedy deletion redirects=include addfirstcategorydate=true

title: User:Microchip08/todo


text:
User talk:CherryGirl22

-- 11:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:CherryGirl22


text:
User talk:徳丸

-- 11:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:徳丸


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (17)

The problem with that logic is that Islam wasn't written to be a pacifist or anti-terrorist organization. *If* Islam had been conceived of as being a religion that specifically excluded those who would engage in military action in its name, then you would be correct that it was being "twisted" by terrorists in order to justify their position. But the Quran specifically calls on Muslims to spread Islam via force (in multiple locations throughout the book), including calling for unbelievers to be forcibly converted or, if they resist, killed. Here's part of one of the passages in question (it's a long and overly windy book, like all religious texts):

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."

It also specifically mentions things like... (paraphrased for brevity) "Any Muslim who leaves Islam *must* be executed. Any Muslim who does not execute them is as guilty as they are." It's an intrinsically violent religion, even when you ignore the made up (recently added) bits from Sharia Law. If you read those things in your holy book (and you actually believed in the whole God thing, heh), wouldn't you feel justified in attacking non-believers?

I occasionally hear a liberal Imam in a western country claim that people who engage in military action in support of Islam are "twisting the words of Muhammad", but I've read enough of the Quran to know that that is not the case. Just like the literal Christians aren't "twisting the words of God" by actually attempting to adhere to their Bible rather than imagining what they'd like it to say, following that, and still calling themselves Christian.


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (18)

One thing that I will add: the Quran specifically disallows any form of suicide, regardless of the situation. Therefore anyone who straps explosives to themselves and blows themselves up (for any reason) won't get their 72 virgins. Various Sunni organizations have attempted to interpret the bits of the Quran that speak of "dying in the name of Allah (and being rewarded for such action)" as giving a blanket justification for *any* death in the service of God, but they don't. That's one of the few instances of the "twisting" of Islam in order to allow banned military actions that I've seen.

It's also interesting how most of the major (and minor) terrorist groups are Sunni, not Shiite.


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (19)

It's true! And don't forget, they just love to restrict the freedom of others in the process and try to force their own religious laws on people. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Floydc

-- 12:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Floydc


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (20)

For the record it is much, much, much easier to exterminate the population of a country (or a continent, or a planet) than it is to conquer and subdue a population, which is what they've effectively been trying to do in Afghanistan for the past decade.

Both of those types of action are, of course, stupid. No argument there.


text:
User talk:Russo Turisto

-- 12:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Russo Turisto


text:
User talk:Kimmarubyul

-- 12:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kimmarubyul


text:
User talk:Mr alexinooo

-- 12:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mr alexinooo


text:
User talk:Shubham7710

-- 12:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shubham7710


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Comments from feedback form - "An animal follows its natural ..."

An animal follows its natural instincts, so you kill the animal? This doesn't make sense to me at all...


text:
User talk:Clubmid

-- 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Clubmid


text:
User talk:Huandy618

-- 12:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Huandy618


text:
User talk:Emeric75

-- 12:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Emeric75


text:
User talk:Edokeshishyan

-- 12:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Edokeshishyan


text:
User talk:Edmon74

-- 12:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Edmon74


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (21)

Eh, there is enough of that among the other religions. Some atheists, for example, are being told by God-fearing Christians to "get off our country!" Though, at least they aren't beheading the offenders like one certain group of people.

Okay, quiz time everyone! Which religion will you find people calling for the death penalty because:

1) someone said something bad about their religion?

2) someone burned their holy book?

While we wait for the next guy or gal to step up and point out the history of Christianity and all the atrocities committed in its name hundreds of years ago, I'll get back to enjoying my breakfast.


text:
User talk:Micmar91

-- 13:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Micmar91


text:
User talk:Jkr2255 as a normal user

-- 13:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jkr2255 as a normal user


text:
User talk:Anitramn

-- 13:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anitramn


text:
User talk:Jimmer Alfonso

-- 13:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jimmer Alfonso


text:
User talk:AJO191

-- 13:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AJO191


text:
User talk:Peteryeung2350

-- 13:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Peteryeung2350


text:
User talk:DBAllan

-- 13:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DBAllan


text:
User talk:Edit4rmtatha

-- 13:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Edit4rmtatha


text:
User talk:KatkaT

-- 13:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KatkaT


text:
User talk:Rockkooky

-- 13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rockkooky


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Visiting Wild Animals

Once again people have chosen to "visit" wild animals, someone has gotten hurt, and GOSH, the animals are blamed. Suppose someone comes into your home without your invitation, does something you feel (rightly or wrongly) is threatening, and you defend yourself. Do the police come in and haul you off for punishment? No. Well, I hope not.

Why is it when humans intrude into a wild animal's territory and get themselves hurt (no, I'm not blaming the toddler who also had no choice), the animals are punished, even killed? If we mark an an area as "wild" then WE should take the consequences if we overstep the rules of the animals there.


text:
User talk:Galjundi7

-- 13:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Galjundi7


text:
User talk:Scarletnovastar

-- 13:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scarletnovastar


text:
User talk:Sugarman

-- 13:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sugarman


text:
User talk:Rotes Kreuz

-- 13:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rotes Kreuz


text:
User talk:Kubilayba

-- 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kubilayba


text:
User talk:Khuongtng2000

-- 13:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Khuongtng2000


text:
User talk:Bellomo

-- 14:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bellomo


text:
User talk:Adityaguptag

-- 14:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Adityaguptag


text:
User talk:Jens Kemper

-- 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jens Kemper


text:
User talk:Hannes Karnoefel

-- 14:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hannes Karnoefel


text:
User talk:Max Robespierre

-- 14:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Max Robespierre


text:
U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate

April 27, 2011

The today released a detailed Hawaii birth certificate in an attempt to put to rest the issue of President Barack Obama's legitimacy to hold the office of president. Shortly after the unexpected release, the president spoke live on national television, explaining, "We do not have time for this kind of silliness."

President Obama noted that the issue of his birthplace began during his campaign. "I have watched with bemusement, I've been puzzled at the degree at which this thing just kept on going," he said, and blamed media culture for perpetuating the controversy. The president did not answer reporters' questions nor explain why the document was not released until now.

"We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers," he said, noting the severe problems the nation faces and the importance of the decisions that need to be made. Obama said the problems could not be resolved "if we are distracted."

The states that only  a "" citizen of the country can become president. Some have contended that Obama was born overseas and is thus disqualified from holding the office. Although a recent poll by / poll showed that most Americans believe Obama was "definitely or probably born in the United States", according to CNN, 40 percent of s doubted Obama is a natural born citizen eligible to be president.

The newly released document, signed by the obstetrician and Obama's mother, shows that Obama was born in on August 4, 1961 of a Caucasian mother born in Kansas and and an African father born in Kenya. It was signed on August 7 and 8.

Prominent businessman has been highlighting the question of Obama's birthplace recently as he mulled over whether to run for the presidency himself, and took credit for its release today. "He should have done it a long time ago," he told journalists. "I am really honored to play such a big role in hopefully, hopefully getting rid of this issue."


text:
User talk:Sebastian2198

-- 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sebastian2198


text:
User talk:Andy4789

-- 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andy4789


text:
User talk:TheLotCarmen

-- 14:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:TheLotCarmen


text:
User talk:Aaraas1

-- 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aaraas1


text:
User talk:Amare135

-- 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Amare135


text:
User talk:Marlynboke

-- 15:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marlynboke


text:
User talk:Lostmypixel

-- 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lostmypixel


text:
User talk:Кот1999

-- 15:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Кот1999


text:
User talk:Em56464

-- 15:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Em56464


text:
User talk:Ser Nikolas

-- 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ser Nikolas


text:
User talk:Fitsaner

-- 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fitsaner


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "I am confused, as to what the ..."

I am confused, as to what the bond is for. Is it to keep him out of jail? Or to pay for police protection?


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Comments from feedback form - "An animal follows its natural ..."/reply

Humans are also animals. We also have natural instincts; one of which is defending our children from attacks by wild animals.

Yes, I'm aware that killing the dingoes wasn't fair. But nature isn't fair.


text:
User talk:Wikisalomania

-- 15:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikisalomania


text:
User talk:Tmouchentois

-- 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tmouchentois


text:
User talk:Bspringbett

-- 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bspringbett


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Comments from feedback form - "An animal follows its natural ..."/reply (2)

I've always disliked the "nature isn't fair" (or "life isn't fair") argument. Fairness or unfairness is a property of intelligent beings, in which category I do not place nature. Nature isn't unfair, either. If there is to be any fairness, we have to provide it ourselves, because we're the ones capable of it.

Not that I'd argue against euthanizing the dingoes, sad though it is; once animals learn to victimize humans, that makes them more dangerous.


text:
User talk:Pkpcf

-- 16:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pkpcf


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Comments from feedback form - "An animal follows its natural ..."/reply (3)

In this case the parents were not supervising their child. This is the parents' fault, not the dingoes'.


text:
User talk:Jrousmani

-- 16:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jrousmani


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Comments from feedback form - "An animal follows its natural ..."/reply (4)

True, and they shouldn't get off scot-free for it. But the reason for euthanizing the dingoes isn't that it's their "fault".


text:
User talk:MAMUN RASHID

-- 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MAMUN RASHID


text:
User talk:A7N8X

-- 16:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:A7N8X


text:
User talk:Perfectionalism

-- 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Perfectionalism


text:
User talk:WaldoMinny

-- 17:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:WaldoMinny


text:
User talk:Geneva~enwikinews

-- 17:11, 27 April 2011 (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 Geneva. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Geneva~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 23:17, 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) 06:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Geneva~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Arbh39

-- 17:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arbh39


text:
User talk:Simi chamo

-- 17:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Simi chamo


text:
User talk:Mrfoxtalbot

-- 17:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mrfoxtalbot


text:
User talk:Florentdsouza

-- 17:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Florentdsouza


text:
User talk:Nejoh

-- 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nejoh


text:
User talk:Frank3097

-- 17:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Frank3097


text:
User talk:Свободабоец

-- 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Свободабоец


text: Talk:U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate


text: Comments:U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate


text:
User talk:Eat24hours

-- 17:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eat24hours


text:
User talk:Andrey 675

-- 18:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andrey 675


text:
User talk:Chilavert 85

-- 18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chilavert 85


text:
User talk:Houbsi

-- 18:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Houbsi


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions/Oversight/TUFKAAP

This has been open for several months without the votes required. Whilst the high requirements imposed from above require us to leave these open than normal votes, months in plural is excessive. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

— Oversight and CheckUser
We need more oversighters and checkusers. I've been long, valued and trusted member of this community. I know there a concern about having too much power in one user... but with such a small community that Wikinews it's bound to happen unfortunately. However, I am active and I feel like stepping up my role here on Wikinews. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Notice : This RFP is now for OVERSIGHT PERMISSION ONLY . CheckUser has been dropped by me. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Stats

 * Previous requests: RfA · RfrA · RfB

Questions and comments

 * Could we have these in separate requests? — μchip08 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * These two privs are dramatically different. Per above, I would request they be separated completely. Oversight is predominantly good judgement; CU is highly technical. For example, do you know the difference between a /24 and a /16 Patrick? How many IPs would each check? What's the corresponding subnet masks? How do you establish which range you should check for ISP foo? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding sooner, usually I would, just been an unusually busy week at work due schedule changes by stakeholders and my organization. Per your concerns Brian, I am going to drop the CheckUser request and just turn this into a request for Oversight. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) for OS.  Good call on the choice of which one to do, TUFKAAP. BarkingFish (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Like a Rolling Stone! アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) of oversight — μchip08 13:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , trusted user, I've had some concerns about his actions before but nothing serious enough to merit an oppose. I don't agree with the "too many flags" argument. The rights list is obviously going to get long, current bureaucrats are the only people that are seriously considered for CU/OS anyway. We currently have many people with very long access lists, I don't see any complaints about them... Tempodivalse [talk]  20:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) * due to a) These not being broken into separate requests and, b) No attempt to answer my questions regarding technical ability to interpret CU results and investigate beyond simple httpd log access. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * See Q&C above. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) --Sahim (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) fully with Oversight access. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , no worries, -- Cirt (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Trustworthy.  --Pi zero (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Why not?  — fetch · comms   05:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Well-suited.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Tyrol5 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , don't see any reason not to. the wub "?!"  22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Jcart1534 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I trust him.  Mattisse (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) – I don't see why not. —MC10 (T•C•L)  04:28, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) - I thought I already had...  DEN  DODGE  George Watson  14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Computerjoe 's talk  10:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Why not. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) I have no objections, so why not? — Mike  moral  ♪♫  00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * The following vote applies to the original combined request for oversight and checkuser; this voter has since voted "weak support" for oversight once checkuser was removed from the request.
 * Oppose. "TUFKAAP (bureaucrat, reviewer, administrator)" is already fairly long — "TUFKAAP (bureaucrat, reviewer, administrator, check user, oversighter)" just seems too long. Coupled with the fact that you seem to have made/considered an awful lot of reconfirmation requests recently make me believe that you, perhaps, are not the best candidate for the jobs although if you had ipbe and flood as well, it would be bordering on the awesome side of things — μchip08 19:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Iain is also a b'crat, reviewer and admin yet you voted support on his OS request? Any particular reason the switch in opinion? Does it have to do with my two reconfirmation requests? --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That, combined with the fact that I hadn't noticed. — μchip08 22:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

 * 1) Oppose. Gryllida 01:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Any specific reason, or just oppose in general? :) Just wondering if there's something I'm not aware of as I'm not exactly "active" much here anymore.  — fetch · comms  02:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) *My personal impression of the decisions made by the candidate during the last few years isn't 100% positive, so I'm in a doubt on whether this nomination is appropriate at this moment. Gryllida 02:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Secreto de las Castañuelas

-- 18:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Secreto de las Castañuelas


text:
User talk:Aksmen

-- 18:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aksmen


text:
User talk:Allnighttool

-- 19:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Allnighttool


text:
User talk:Pipesangar

-- 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pipesangar


text:
User talk:Houston1969

-- 19:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Houston1969


text:
User talk:Brzydalek

-- 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Brzydalek


text:
User talk:Sersanxez

-- 19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sersanxez


text:
User talk:Felipe Angeles

-- 19:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Felipe Angeles


text:
User talk:Visitarg

-- 19:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Visitarg


text:
User talk:Cyru$

-- 20:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cyru$


text:
User talk:I am so coooool

-- 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:I am so coooool


text:
User talk:James.94.freeman

-- 20:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:James.94.freeman


text:
User talk:Tango tree

-- 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tango tree


text: Comments:Weening takes stage to Gérardmer in photo finish


text:
User talk:Seisatsu

-- 20:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Seisatsu


text:
User talk:Staxjp

-- 20:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Staxjp


text:
User talk:Nikilsinha.d

-- 21:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nikilsinha.d


text:
Thread:Comments:Weening takes stage to Gérardmer in photo finish/No sense

Article makes no sense. Clicked on the "Random article" link. Standards must have been very low when this article was published.


text:
Afghan pilot kills nine Americans

April 28, 2011

Eight American troops and one contractor were shot and killed by an Afghan pilot Wednesday. Five Afghan soldiers were also wounded in the attack, for which the Taliban has claimed responsibility.

The incident, which began around 10 a.m. Afghan time (0530 UTC), occurred in the operations room of the Afghan Air Force in. The shooter, Ahmad Gul Sahebi, was killed by NATO forces.

"Suddenly, in the middle of the meeting, shooting started," said Afghan Air Corps spokesman Colonel Bahader. "After the shooting started, we saw a number of Afghan army officers and soldiers running out of the building. Some were even throwing themselves out of the windows to get away."

The shooter's brother, Hassan Sahebi, said, "My brother was a little depressed recently, but he had served with Afghanistan's national army for 20 years. He loved his country and his people. He was a good man." He also said that his brother was facing financial troubles, but was not connected with the Taliban. A spokesman for the militia group, however, described Ahmad Gul Sahebi as an informant and sleeper agent who began planning the shooting five months ago.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai quickly condemned the attack and offered condolence to the victims and their families. He also said that the police and military would investigate the matter. Wednesday's incident is the seventh this year in which NATO or Afghan forces have been killed by rogue Afghan troops or insurgents dressed as troops.

title: Afghan pilot kills nine Americans


text:
Thread:Comments:Schoolboy dies in Gaza after bus hit by rockets/Tragedy/Another Reason/reply (8)

Terrorism = the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes

They both do it to each other. Do you disagree?


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (22)

I certainly get what you're saying; but, as an outsider, I view religions as essentially untangible and undefinable. Partly, of course, exact definitions shouldn't be any of my business unless it harms people who did/do not sign up for such...


text:
Thread:Comments:Schoolboy dies in Gaza after bus hit by rockets/Tragedy/Another Reason/reply (9)

One example springs to mind.


text:
User talk:Cminiteroi

-- 21:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cminiteroi


text:
User talk:Megachad

-- 21:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Megachad


text:
Comments:Stewart battles rain to win Pepsi 400 at Daytona

Comments from feedback form - "Add the fact that it technical..."
Add the fact that it technically finished on Sunday. —69.225.234.32 (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "I am confused, as to what the ..."/reply

It was a bond to pay for police protection. As the U.S. Supreme Court has decided in the past, it is unconstitutional to require a bond for police protection. Perhaps the article was not clear enough. It was a free speech case, and only happened to concern a pastor who wanted to speak out against a particular religion. In the US, so-called "prior restraint", that is preventing someone from speaking out before they actually have, is unconstitutional. Making them pay a bond for police protection in order to speak out is therefore unconstitutional also. Mattisse (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Jacter4

-- 21:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jacter4


text:
User talk:Ayan Hussain

-- 21:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ayan Hussain


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (23)

Really, the article was not clear enough apparently. The issue was the US constitutional right of free speech. The specific instance in this case was a pastor who wanted to demonstrate against a particular religion and was being required to post a bond for police protection in order to do so. The issue of religion seems to distract people from the fundamental right of free speech whether it be about religion or any other topic.


text:
User talk:All Hail The Muffin

-- 21:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:All Hail The Muffin


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (24)

I'm curious as to why that was directed as a reply to me, since the conversation was already on a tangent by the time I entered. Indeed, it was the tangent I was keen to comment on.


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Comments from feedback form - "Nice!"

Nice!


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (25)

It wasn't directed at you. I am sorry if it seemed so, and I apologize. (I just now clicked on the message thingie at the top of the page (I have been wondering what on earth it referred to) so I am answering here. Again, I apologize if the effect was such that it seemed directed at you.


text:
Thread:Comments:Qur'an-burning pastor jailed after mosque protest barred/Comments from feedback form - "With so much at stake & everyt..."/reply (26)

No worries :)


text:
User talk:Striker=soccer

-- 22:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Striker=soccer


text:
US Federal Reserve Chairman gives first news conference

April 28, 2011

On Wednesday, at the first live public news conference ever  given by the  (Fed), Federal Reserve Chairman   explained  the  recent policy  to a small group of reporters and answered some questions.

The conference was conducted two hours after the release of a report by the Fed's policymaking committee, the  outlining its policies decided the day before. Until 1994 the Fed gave no information about the  policy decisions made in its meetings pertaining to   and other policies. The public was left to guess what decisions were. In 1994 the Fed began issuing brief reports.

Unlike the US, the central banks in Europe, Japan, Canada and other countries have regularly meetings with the press after making such policy decisions.

The public has increasingly been aware of the secretive practices of the Fed, especially after its unprecedented intervention with massive bailouts of large financial institutions during the recent financial crises.

At Wednesday's meeting, it was decided that the Fed would maintain  near-zero interest rates  to stimulate the economy. It announced that it plans to  end its program of buying back  by the end of June, a program receiving criticism from  concerned about the.

Bernanke’s exchange with reporters, called "historic" by the Los Angeles Times,  was the first of a series of  regular news conferences  planned to be held quarterly by Bernanke to provided the Fed with more transparency. He was cautious in his remarks. He made no news but explained in general terms the Fed's policy.

He said the Fed is attempting to revive the US economy  by creating jobs and keeping  low.

"The trade-offs are getting less attractive at this point," Bernanke said. "Inflation has gotten higher … it's not clear we can get substantial improvements in payrolls without some additional inflation risk."

During the conference, Bernanke said he recognized that the average American was unhappy with  the  increasing inflation and the  slow job growth, but said the Fed projected that  long-term inflation will remain stable while he acknowledged the effects of  the short-term price increases which he said were driven largely by the increase in the price of oil.

"There’s not much the Federal Reserve can do about gas prices, per se, at least not without derailing growth entirely, which certainly is not the right way to go," Bernanke said. "After all, the Fed can’t create more oil."

When asked by reporters to explain his vague answers, he gave general replies. For example, when asked to clarify the Fed's intention to maintain near-zero interest rates  for an "extended period" he said the wording suggested this period would probably continue  through a couple more policymaking meetings at least.

"Unfortunately, the reason we use this vaguer terminology is we don’t know with certainty how quickly response will be required," he said.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial, said of Bernanke's performance at the press conference, "He was well-prepared and did exactly what he wanted to do - do no harm."


text:
User talk:Ms9153

-- 22:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ms9153


text:
User talk:Valeria k

-- 22:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Valeria k


text:
User talk:Maniivannan

-- 23:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maniivannan


text:
User talk:Josvam23

-- 23:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Josvam23


text:
Thread:Comments:Libyan city of Misrata reported to be secure after Gaddafi forces retreat/Comments from feedback form - "good"

good


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Visiting Wild Animals/reply

I completely agree with Scarabrea. The dingoes were not at fault. There is a saying about sharks, "when you swim in the sea, remember who is your landlord" The same applies to all wild beasts. 156.8.251.250 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
Thread:Comments:Australian Defence Force faces a mass of sexual abuse lawsuits/REAL Australian men

I thought REAL Australian men only have sex with sheep? 156.8.251.250 (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Luke.oscar

-- 23:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Luke.oscar


text:
Thread:Comments:Australian Defence Force faces a mass of sexual abuse lawsuits/REAL Australian men/reply

Tadpole256 (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:AKSupreme

-- 23:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AKSupreme


text:
User talk:Daifukumanju

-- 00:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Daifukumanju


text:
User talk:Alekzitho

-- 00:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alekzitho


text:
User talk:AgsjdvfjGF\fashdfvSH

-- 00:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AgsjdvfjGF\fashdfvSH


text:
User talk:Grammy Gang

-- 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Grammy Gang


text:
User talk:I'm NOT Kitt!esonf!re

-- 00:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

アンパロ Io ti odio! 00:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:I'm NOT Kitt!esonf!re


text:
User talk:Kitt!esonf!re RETURNS!

-- 00:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

アンパロ Io ti odio! 00:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kitt!esonf!re RETURNS!


text:
User talk:Poopy pee!

-- 00:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Poopy pee!


text:
User talk:HAND OF BLOODY PEE

-- 00:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

アンパロ Io ti odio! 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:HAND OF BLOODY PEE


text:
User talk:Peguim

-- 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Peguim


text:
User talk:Flor garcia

-- 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Flor garcia


text:
User talk:Hanarobert

-- 01:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hanarobert


text:
User talk:Ladivertom

-- 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ladivertom


text:
User talk:Magtei

-- 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Magtei


text:
User talk:Richard.decal

-- 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Richard.decal


text:
Comments:CanadaVOTES: Animal Alliance (AAEVPC) candidate Marie Crawford running in Toronto—Danforth

Comments from feedback form - "not much info about party"
not much info about party —70.49.187.242 (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:DomoKiuvo

-- 01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DomoKiuvo


text:
User talk:Elcio.acf

-- 02:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elcio.acf


text:
User talk:FrickFrack

-- 02:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:FrickFrack


text:
User talk:Kaleab246

-- 02:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kaleab246


text:
User talk:Makavaile

-- 02:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Makavaile


text:
User talk:Therowldawg

-- 02:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Therowldawg


text:
User talk:Padraic17

-- 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Padraic17


text:
User:Nilem12

Welcome to my WikiNews page!

Who am I?
I am 16 years old and was born in Berlin,Germany.

title: User:Nilem12


text:
User talk:4ndr328

-- 03:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:4ndr328


text: Talk:Afghan pilot kills nine Americans

title: Talk:Afghan pilot kills nine Americans


text: Comments:Afghan pilot kills nine Americans


text:
User talk:Chefkoch2009

-- 03:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chefkoch2009


text:
User talk:Montblanc polter

-- 03:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Montblanc polter


text:
User talk:Gamecrazy00123

-- 03:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gamecrazy00123


text:
User talk:Fresove

-- 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fresove


text:
User talk:Jd977

-- 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Queensland cab conversations to be recorded
..thanks for starting the story! Potentially newsworthy, and passed the review challenge eventually. Keep up the good work! Gryllida 19:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jd977


text:
Thread:Comments:U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate/

The headline is incorrect. The White House did not release his original birth certificate or even an accurate photocopy. Comparison of the Obama certificate with that of the Nordyke twins from the same hospital and one day different shows that the Obama certificate is overlayed on the same green checked background as his certification of life birth. No such pattern is seen in an authentic birth certificate from that hospital and that time period. It therefore cannot be a literal copy of the original. Magnification of the text shows that the green check pattern tends to disappear behind the letters.


text:
User talk:C1ock44

-- 03:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:C1ock44


text:
Thread:Comments:U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate//reply

It's a certified copy issued by the State Registrar. Do we need any more proof of what we've known all along? The only reason the certificate looks different is that this particular copy was printed a few days ago!


text:
Thread:Comments:Australian PM Gillard pressured to address human rights crackdown in China/Comments from feedback form - "Hopefully Australia will be ab..."

Hopefully Australia will be able to make an impact on human rights violations in China. The reason the US can't do anything is that China holds almost all of our debt!


text:
Thread:Comments:Renowned Indian guru Śrī Satya Sai Baba dies aged 84/Comments from feedback form - "awesome hair :P"

awesome hair :P


text:
User talk:Pratap.akshay

-- 04:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pratap.akshay


text:
User talk:Akhristov

-- 04:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Akhristov


text:
User talk:Kamcraft

-- 04:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kamcraft


text:
User talk:Imdad786

-- 05:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Imdad786


text:
User talk:Swarinspire

-- 05:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Swarinspire


text:
User talk:TarHeelsUNC27

-- 05:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:TarHeelsUNC27


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Comments from feedback form - "An animal follows its natural ..."/reply (5)

Then for what reason do we euthanize dingoes? To educate the other dingoes that might consider attacking humans in the future? Non-human animals certainly do not have the capacity to think like that... unless you're proposing that in the long run, dingoes will evolve into a species that does not attack humans, since dingoes that are more inclined to attack humans are more likely to die earlier and therefore don't reproduce as much? :/


text:
User talk:DobryDamour

-- 05:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DobryDamour


text:
Thread:Comments:Tornadoes damage hundreds of Missouri homes, force closure of airport/Comments from feedback form - "I have a friend who is from St..."

I have a friend who is from St. Louis... I'm glad there were no major injuries!


text:
User talk:Marbod Egerius

-- 05:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marbod Egerius


text:
User talk:Naveedrana786

-- 05:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Naveedrana786


text:
User talk:Afamberry

-- 05:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Afamberry


text:
User talk:Elerina

-- 05:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elerina


text:
Thread:Comments:U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate/Comments from feedback form - "Interesting story."

Interesting story.


text:
User talk:Acros168

-- 06:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Acros168


text:
Steve Jobs denies 'location-gate'

April 29, 2011

Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs announced on Wednesday that technology is not being used to monitor the location of its customers. The scandal arose from concern that data collected by Apple would make it possible for anyone with access to a person's private computer to retrieve information about their movements.

Jobs acknowledged that while iPhones keep a database of and cell tower hotspots these do not reveal anything about individual users' location. “That’s what people saw on the phone and mistook it for location”

In a separate statement, Apple clarified the device is merely caching data in order to improve the speed of locating users in the future.

Jobs confirmed during the interview that Apple would testify before the United States Congress. “They have asked us to come and we will honour their request, of course.”

Apple have since made plans to release software updates that will cut the size of the wireless hotspot location database stored on its iPhones.

The data scandal, coined ‘Location-gate’ has overshadowed news of Apple’s announcement for sales of the delayed white which will begin shipping from Thursday.

title: Steve Jobs denies 'location-gate'


text:
User talk:Mthuber72

-- 06:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mthuber72


text:
Thread:Comments:U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate//reply (2)

No matter what they release, there are people who won't believe it. They could invent a time machine and send Sarah Palin back in time to witness Obama's birth and they still wouldn't believe her if she told them. It's not about the truth, it's about keeping anyone who isn't a white conservative out of the White House using whatever remotely possible arguments are available.


text:
User talk:Pkr1008

-- 07:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pkr1008


text:
User talk:Ccpl

-- 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ccpl


text:
User talk:Phuogly

-- 07:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phuogly


text:
User talk:Tyche99

-- 07:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tyche99


text:
User talk:Frektas

-- 08:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Frektas


text:
User talk:218.14.204.88

hello.

title: User talk:218.14.204.88


text:
User talk:Keyscout

-- 08:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Keyscout


text:
User talk:Uttam.bhardwaj25

-- 08:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Uttam.bhardwaj25


text:
User talk:Hoangkimcang

-- 08:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hoangkimcang


text:
User talk:Nick Kolobkov

-- 08:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nick Kolobkov


text:
User talk:James 9959

-- 08:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:James 9959


text:
User talk:Ingridv

-- 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ingridv


text:
User talk:G.squaquara

-- 09:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:G.squaquara


text:
User talk:53amodels

-- 09:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:53amodels


text:
Thread:Comments:U.S. President Barack Obama releases original birth certificate//reply (3)

You want more proof? Then go to Hawaii and request your own, it's 'only' public record, anyone can get a copy.

Maybe that one will have the checkered [definitely not "checked", or maybe you're speaking a language I'm not aware of] background/pattern you're so desperately looking for. ;-) HTH [Hope This Helps] MDGx (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Ermesligure

-- 09:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ermesligure


text:
User talk:EPublicRelationsMT

-- 10:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:EPublicRelationsMT


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Comments from feedback form - "An animal follows its natural ..."/reply (6)

KILL ALL DINGOS ;-)


text:
User talk:Wodoley

-- 10:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wodoley


text:
User talk:Elauminri

-- 10:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elauminri


text:
User talk:Sliverss12

-- 10:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sliverss12


text:
Egyptian politician ElBaradei says ousted President Mubarak must stand trial

April 30, 2011

Egyptian politician Mohamed ElBaradei said that ousted President Hosni Mubarak must stand trial. His statement follows the recent ratification by Egyptian Foreign Minister of a statute that ensures Egypt will join the jurisdiction of the  (ICC). If ElBaradei assumes power in the coming October/November 2011 elections, Mubarak and other former high-ranking corrupt Egyptian officials could potentially be tried in The Hague.

In an interview with the Islam Times, ElBaradei cited reasons as to why the trial of Hosni Mubarak will be necessary to undertake if he chooses to run for Egypt's top job. "Mubarak allegedly issued the order to shoot at the protesters. [That should] have been reason enough to arrest him immediately...The Military Council has no other option than to try Mubarak and bring everyone else to justice who is responsible for human rights violations or corruption," he said.

ElBaradei's previous statement to during the 2011 Egyptian Revolution which began on the 25th of January, according to , was that a trial was unnecessary and that what primarily needed to be done was for Mubarak to hand back money, speculated to be as much as 70 billion, which Mubarak illegally took over the course of his 30 year reign and now owes to the Egyptian people in order for economic progress to emerge.

ElBaradei has stated he believes Egypt should be run by 'institutions' rather than 'individuals' and has said, "I want to come up with a renaissance project for Egypt and not an electoral program for ElBaradei".


text:
User talk:MarkyBehr

-- 11:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MarkyBehr


text:
Talk:Egyptian politician ElBaradei says ousted President Mubarak must stand trial

Headline
The headline is misleading: ElBaradei has simply said he wants Mubarak to stand trial. It has not, as far as I'm aware, been officially confirmed that he will stand trial.  wacky wace  11:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Yeah, ElBaradei gave a few interviews to media outlets and suddenly he is "announcing" and making an "announcement" (which was edited out after publication) when he has no formal standing whatsoever in the government. He was a protester but is not an "official" leader of the opposition. This article is merely a summary of his beliefs that Mubarak should stand trial from a February 11 interview: "In an interview with the Islam Times, ElBaradei cited reasons as to why the trial of Hosni Mubarak will be necessary to undertake if he chooses to run for Egypt's top job."

 * Misleading article and the headline definitely needs to be changed. The article should be rewritten so it does not misrepresent the sources. This is my opinion.  Mattisse (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the headline to one that is more representative of the situation. Also removed some sources that were irrelevant to the article and cleaned up the wording. Mattisse (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Manumanel

-- 11:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Manumanel


text:
User talk:IROBASIC

-- 11:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:IROBASIC


text:
User talk:Xinjie~enwikinews

-- 11:22, 28 April 2011 (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 Xinjie. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Xinjie~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 23:23, 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) 06:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xinjie~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Demonlogist

-- 11:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Demonlogist


text:
User talk:Serg Ivanov

-- 12:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Serg Ivanov


text:
User talk:Abubakarafzal

-- 12:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abubakarafzal


text:
User talk:CobCannon

-- 12:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:CobCannon


text:
User talk:Leef5

-- 12:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leef5


text:
User talk:DMWilliams

-- 12:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DMWilliams


text:
User talk:Dnastation

-- 12:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dnastation


text:
User talk:Mukkulam

-- 12:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mukkulam


text:
User talk:Robcsi2010

-- 13:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robcsi2010


text:
User talk:Audreygabbie

-- 13:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Audreygabbie


text:
User talk:Firas emachah

-- 13:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Firas emachah


text:
User talk:Thamara.K

-- 13:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thamara.K


text:
User talk:Silvaktnm

-- 13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Silvaktnm


text:
User talk:Erik.vdbhotmail

-- 14:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Erik.vdbhotmail


text:
Thread:Comments:Dingoes attack toddler on Fraser Island/Comments from feedback form - "An animal follows its natural ..."/reply (7)

someone's gotta die when a child is injured


text:
User talk:Quinn1

-- 14:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Quinn1


text:
User talk:Mitan76

-- 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mitan76


text:
User talk:Azrailes

-- 14:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Azrailes


text:
User talk:Krishnakanthv

-- 14:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Krishnakanthv


text:
User talk:Duymc82

-- 14:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Duymc82


text:
User talk:Toad577

-- 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Toad577


text:
User talk:Roopa~enwikinews

-- 15:11, 28 April 2011 (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 Roopa. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Roopa~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 23:26, 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:Roopa~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Cxsegarra

-- 15:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cxsegarra


text:
User talk:Cadabena

-- 15:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cadabena


text:
User talk:Nellinaart

-- 15:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nellinaart


text:
User talk:Fionanoel6s

-- 15:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fionanoel6s


text:
User talk:Zufran7

-- 15:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zufran7


text:
User talk:Francisco e q

-- 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Francisco e q


text:
User talk:Neobuddy89

-- 15:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Neobuddy89


text:
Deadly tornadoes rip through southern US, killing over 300

April 29, 2011

A huge thunderstorm system spawning massive tornadoes ripped  through the south-eastern  US  Wednesday evening and early Thursday morning, killing at least 306 people in six states and causing  wide spread property damage. Some 173 tornadoes have been reported from New York to Texas. In the worst hit state of Alabama, at least 210 are confirmed  dead, including 36 in  alone.

Deaths also were reported in Mississippi, Tennessee, Georgia, Virginia and  Kentucky.

Up to one million people in Alabama were without power. A nuclear power plant was shut down in Alabama after it lost power to its three units, an operation of the plant's safety systems.

Seven states have declared a state of emergency, and federal aid is being sent to Alabama. said he was activating 2,000 Alabama National Guard personell to  aid in  search and rescue. President Barack Obama, who plans to visit Alabama on Friday to view the destruction, sent a message of condolence to the governor:

"Michelle and I extend our deepest condolences to the families of those who lost their lives because of the tornadoes that have swept through Alabama and the southeastern United States. Our hearts go out to all those who have been affected by this devastation, and we commend the heroic efforts of those who have been working tirelessly to respond to this disaster. I just spoke to Governor Bentley and told him that I have ordered the Federal Government to move quickly in our response and informed him that I approved his request for emergency Federal assistance, including search and rescue assets. While we may not know the extent of the damage for days, we will continue to monitor these severe storms across the country and stand ready to continue to help the people of Alabama and all citizens affected by these storms."

Preliminary estimates of the tornado hitting Tuscaloosa suggest it tore along the ground for 176 miles and contained  winds up to 200 miles per hour. The devastation included residential and commercial areas, as well as the city's  infrastructure and civic buildings.

"I don't know how anyone survived," said Mayor Walter Maddox of Tuscaloosa. "We're used to tornadoes here in Tuscaloosa. It's part of growing up. But when you look at the path of destruction that's likely 5 to 7 miles long in an area half a mile to a mile wide ... it's an amazing scene. There's parts of the city I don't recognize, and that's someone that's lived here his entire life."

Officials did not want to give specific numbers for death toll and destruction in specific states, as the extent of the damage and human injury and death is not completely known. According the the Los Angeles Times, "Mississippi officials reported 32 dead, Tennessee raised its report to 29, Georgia reported 13, Virginia said it had eight deaths and Kentucky reported at least one death. The number of injured was in the hundreds, with that number also expected to rise."

"In terms of the ground-up damage and quite possibly the insured damage, this event will be of historic proportions," Jose Miranda, from EQECAT, a catastrophe risk modeling firm,

The severe weather warning has been continued through Thursday, and includes  parts of New York, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. This outbreak of tornadoes is considered the deadliest since 1974 when more than 300 were killed in a. On March 18, 1925, 695 people died in.

Greg Carbin, meteorologist at the, said, "May is usually the most active tornado month. Will it maintain the activity of April, we just cannot say."


text:
User talk:If5tatement

-- 15:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:If5tatement


text:
User talk:Casresearch

-- 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Casresearch