text:
British Airways cabin crew begins strike

March 21, 2010

Cabin crew workers at British Airways have begun a three-day strike, affecting over 60,000 people, after last-minute talks between BA and the union, Unite, collapsed.

The strike will extend for three days, after beginning at midnight in London. After the first strike, the union plans another four days of industrial action, beginning on March 27th. According to BA, around 65% of the airline's passengers will be able to reach their destinations, despite 1,100 of the normal 1,950 flights being canceled. The effect of the strike varied between airports; while all flights were operating from London City Airport, only 60% of long-haul and 30% of short-haul flights were expected to operate from London Heathrow Airport. At London Gatwick Airport, all long-haul flights and around half of short-haul flights were still operating.

The strike began after last-minute negotiations between BA and Unite collapsed. BA and Unite have been at odds for some time; in November 2009, BA announced plans to reduce the number of crew on many flights and institute a two-year pay freeze from 2010. While Unite says it recognizes the need for costs to be cut, it also claimed it was not consulted on the means to do so.

The strike also has political implications in the United Kingdom, as Unite is one of the largest backers for Prime Minister Gordon Browns' Labour Party. The opposition Conservative Party have called on the Labour Party to sever financial ties with Unite during the length of the dispute, saying that "Labour's dependence on funding from Unite is compromising their ability to stand up to the unions and stand up for the interests of passengers."


text: User talk:Marcusd01

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

title: User talk:Marcusd01


text: User talk:Coelhomiq

title: User talk:Coelhomiq


text: User talk:Kiki3103

title: User talk:Kiki3103


text: User talk:Jtskoh

title: User talk:Jtskoh


text: User talk:Renz ormenita

title: User talk:Renz ormenita


text: User talk:Atoyebi

title: User talk:Atoyebi


text: User talk:Toll booth

title: User talk:Toll booth


text: User talk:Sbatlv

title: User talk:Sbatlv


text:
User talk:121.166.156.44

Mike moral  ♪♫  03:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:121.166.156.44


text: User talk:Ker

title: User talk:Ker


text: User talk:Guagd

title: User talk:Guagd


text: User talk:Ajay.raja

title: User talk:Ajay.raja


text: User talk:Mechanic45

title: User talk:Mechanic45


text: User talk:Nikki lewis 10

title: User talk:Nikki lewis 10


text:
User:Ajay.raja

I am Ajaz Raja aka "Ajay" from Hyderabad, Pakistan.

title: User:Ajay.raja


text: User talk:Jcollins2

title: User talk:Jcollins2


text: User talk:Rezhwan

title: User talk:Rezhwan


text: User talk:MariadelosAngelesRoccato

title: User talk:MariadelosAngelesRoccato


text: User talk:A5948736

title: User talk:A5948736


text: User talk:Billybob25151

title: User talk:Billybob25151


text: User talk:Bradenunruh

title: User talk:Bradenunruh


text: User talk:Jimboslice234

title: User talk:Jimboslice234


text:
User talk:Wangyanqiu

Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 07:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wangyanqiu


text: User talk:ShinyAshura

title: User talk:ShinyAshura


text: User talk:Jaxonjoshua

title: User talk:Jaxonjoshua


text: User talk:空母翔鶴

title: User talk:空母翔鶴


text: User talk:Letsmile 1106

title: User talk:Letsmile 1106


text: User talk:Midhun.kadavil

title: User talk:Midhun.kadavil


text: User talk:Luan7588

title: User talk:Luan7588


text: User talk:Balasundar1998

title: User talk:Balasundar1998


text: User talk:Yuefairchild

title: User talk:Yuefairchild


text: User talk:Sharpie2007

title: User talk:Sharpie2007


text: User talk:Lilsexymama23

title: User talk:Lilsexymama23


text: User talk:Jg148

title: User talk:Jg148


text: User talk:JasonHockeyGuy

title: User talk:JasonHockeyGuy


text: User talk:Luke.inkster

title: User talk:Luke.inkster


text: User talk:Dustin 3choes

title: User talk:Dustin 3choes


text: User talk:Webdynamics123

title: User talk:Webdynamics123


text: User talk:Philippe BERTHIER-LACOSTE

title: User talk:Philippe BERTHIER-LACOSTE


text: User talk:Ageme

title: User talk:Ageme


text: User talk:Josimas

title: User talk:Josimas


text: User talk:Wikisupporter 100

title: User talk:Wikisupporter 100


text: User talk:Ryan.vilbig

title: User talk:Ryan.vilbig


text: User talk:D570w

title: User talk:D570w


text: User talk:Cunalxing

title: User talk:Cunalxing


text: User talk:Immortal 1404

title: User talk:Immortal 1404


text: User talk:Stravaiger

title: User talk:Stravaiger


text: User talk:Unique 99975

title: User talk:Unique 99975


text:
User:Dendodge/mobile

 * This is how Main Page will look

= Wikinews =

 * Other news

Massive section break to split content

 * This is how an article will look, using the current lead 1 (at time of writing) as an example:

= Thirteen dead after ethnic clashes in Nigeria = March 18, 2010 At least thirteen people were killed by armed herdsmen in Nigeria yesterday, in a village near the  city of Jos, reports say.

According to witnesses, the herdsmen, who were disguised as soldiers, attacked the  village of Byei, south of Jos, at dawn. Media reports say that most of the dead were women and children.

"I can confirm that thirteen people have died while six others have been critically injured,"  commented state information commissioner Gregory Yenlong.

A correspondent for the Al Jazeera news agency said that the  military was preparing a statement about the attack, and probably will  deny any involvement in it.

Violence in and around Jos, mainly between Christians and Muslims has recurred frequently in recent times,  and has claimed several thousand lives. Last week 200 people were killed after clashes in villages near the city, while in January, another 300  people died in similar unrest. The violence has been blamed partially to competition for fertile land between Muslims in the north, and  Christian and animist groups from the south.

According to reports, many of the victims had deep wounds from machetes, and some  were burned; at least three huts were torched in the violence as well.

title: User:Dendodge/mobile


text: User talk:Amitsaha7

title: User talk:Amitsaha7


text: User talk:Nizar aad

title: User talk:Nizar aad


text:
User:K3vin

Editing Wikipedia since - a while ago. Real name: Kevin the three comes from being in my third life. one - 0-40 years, two - 2 weeks, three 40.2 - present.

title: User:K3vin


text: User talk:Enforte

title: User talk:Enforte


text: User talk:Joannalexus

title: User talk:Joannalexus


text: User talk:Diepngoc

title: User talk:Diepngoc


text: User talk:Romulo Zabala Raggio

title: User talk:Romulo Zabala Raggio


text: User talk:Sergyites

title: User talk:Sergyites


text: User talk:Farkas1945

title: User talk:Farkas1945


text: User talk:Jppone

title: User talk:Jppone


text: User talk:Matteof14

title: User talk:Matteof14


text: User talk:Linkrasm

title: User talk:Linkrasm


text: User talk:HOÀNG NGỌC NGHINH

title: User talk:HOÀNG NGỌC NGHINH


text: User talk:Nandagopallanka

title: User talk:Nandagopallanka


text:
User:Enforte

Yo. --Enforte (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User:Enforte


text: User talk:Johnnienugent

title: User talk:Johnnienugent


text: User talk:Mdb10us

title: User talk:Mdb10us


text: User talk:Decahill

title: User talk:Decahill


text: User talk:MRPPA

title: User talk:MRPPA


text: User talk:Kasgeo

title: User talk:Kasgeo


text:
User talk:Grrow

Toxic Waste Behind Somali Pirates
In 1991, when the government of Somalia collapsed, foreign interests seized the opportunity to begin looting the country’s food supply and using the country’s unguarded waters as a dumping ground for nuclear and other toxic waste. According to the High Seas Task Force (HSTF), there were over 800 IUU fishing vessels in Somali waters at one time in 2005 According to the High Seas Task Force (HSTF), there were over 800 IUU fishing vessels in Somali waters at one time in 2005, taking advantage of Somalia’s inability to police and control its own waters and fishing grounds. The IUUs poach an estimated $450 million in seafood from Somali waters annually. In so doing, they steal an invaluable protein source from some of the world’s poorest people and ruin the livelihoods of legitimate fishermen.

Allegations of the dumping of toxic waste, as well as illegal fishing, have circulated since the early 1990s, but hard evidence emerged when the tsunami of 2004 hit the country. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) reported that the tsunami washed rusting containers of toxic waste onto the shores of Puntland, northern Somalia.

Nick Nuttall, a UNEP spokesman, told Al Jazeera that when the barrels were smashed open by the force of the waves, the containers exposed a “frightening activity” that had been going on for more than a decade. “Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there,” he said. “The waste is many different kinds. There is uranium radioactive waste. There is lead, and heavy metals like cadmium and mercury. There is also industrial waste, and there are hospital wastes, chemical wastes—you name it.”

Nuttall also said that since the containers came ashore, hundreds of residents have fallen ill, suffering from mouth and abdominal bleeding, skin infections and other ailments. “What is most alarming here is that nuclear waste is being dumped. Radioactive uranium waste that is potentially killing Somalis and completely destroying the ocean,” he said.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy for Somalia, says the practice helps fuel the eighteen-year-old civil war in Somalia, as companies pay Somali government ministers and/or militia leaders to dump their waste. “There is no government control. . . and there are few people with high moral ground. . . yes, people in high positions are being paid off, but because of the fragility of the Transitional Federal Government, some of these companies now no longer ask the authorities—they simply dump their waste and leave.” In 1992 the countries of the European Union and 168 other countries signed the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal. The convention prohibits waste trade between countries that have signed, as well as countries that have not signed the accord, unless a bilateral agreement had been negotiated. It also prohibits the shipping of hazardous waste to a war zone.

Surprisingly, the UN has disregarded its own findings, and has ignored Somali and international appeals to act on the continued ravaging of the Somali marine resources and dumping of toxic wastes. Violations have also been largely ignored by the region’s maritime authorities.

This is the context from which the men we are calling “pirates” have emerged.

Everyone agrees they were ordinary Somali fishermen who, at first, took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least wage a “tax” on them. They call themselves the Volunteer Coast Guard of Somalia.

One of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali, explains that their motive is “to stop illegal fishing and dumping in our waters. . . . We don’t consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish, and dump waste, and carry weapons in our seas.”

Author Johann Hari notes that, while none of this makes hostage-taking justifiable, the “pirates” have the overwhelming support of the local population for a reason. The independent Somalia news site WardherNews conducted the best research we have on what ordinary Somalis are thinking. It found that 70 percent “strongly support the piracy as a form of national defense of the country’s territorial waters.”

Instead of taking action to protect the people and waters of Somalia from international transgressions, the UN has responded to the situation by passing aggressive resolutions that entitle and encourage transgressors to wage war on the Somali pirates.

A chorus of calls for tougher international action has resulted in multi-national and unilateral Naval stampede to invade and take control of the Somali waters. The UN Security Council (a number of whose members may have ulterior motives to indirectly protect their illegal fishing fleets in the Somali Seas) passed Resolutions 1816 in June 2008, and 1838 in October 2008, which “call upon States interested in the security of maritime activities to take part actively in the fight against piracy on the high seas off the coast of Somalia, in particular by deploying naval vessels and military aircraft. . .” Both NATO and the EU have issued orders to the same effect. Russia, Japan, India, Malaysia, Egypt, and Yemen, along with an increasing number of countries have joined the fray. For years, attempts made to address piracy in the world’s seas through UN resolutions have failed to pass, largely because member nations felt such resolutions would infringe on their sovereignty and security. Countries are unwilling to give up control and patrol of their own waters. UN Resolutions 1816 and 1838, to which a number of West African, Caribbean and South American nations objected, were accordingly tailored to apply to Somalia only. Somalia has no representation at the United Nations strong enough to demand amendments to protect its sovereignty, and Somali civil society objections to the Draft Resolutions—which makes no mention of illegal fishing or hazard waste dumping—were ignored.

Hari asks, “Do we expect starving Somalians to stand passively on their beaches, paddling in our nuclear waste, and watch us snatch their fish to eat in restaurants in London and Paris and Rome? We didn’t act on those crimes—but when some of the fishermen responded by disrupting the transit-corridor for 20 percent of the world’s oil supply, we begin to shriek about “evil.” If we really want to deal with piracy, we need to stop its root cause—our crimes —before we send in the gun-boats to root out Somalia’s criminals.” .......... More txt + videos

title: User talk:Grrow


text: User talk:Sagar-genius

title: User talk:Sagar-genius


text: User talk:Silkiesttie

title: User talk:Silkiesttie


text: User talk:Andronic Igor

title: User talk:Andronic Igor


text: User talk:Tsedeq

title: User talk:Tsedeq


text: User talk:Fatrabike

title: User talk:Fatrabike


text: User talk:Quzeyli

title: User talk:Quzeyli


text: User talk:Utope.spiro

title: User talk:Utope.spiro


text: User talk:بيسو2010

title: User talk:بيسو2010


text: User talk:Foxpencil1

title: User talk:Foxpencil1


text: User talk:Shivin.vs

title: User talk:Shivin.vs


text: User talk:Dasmath

title: User talk:Dasmath


text: User talk:Rajashekhara reddy

title: User talk:Rajashekhara reddy


text: User talk:AlexisXD

title: User talk:AlexisXD


text: User talk:Writehero800

title: User talk:Writehero800


text: User talk:Odzaklijević

title: User talk:Odzaklijević


text:
Thread:Comments:Muammar al-Gaddafi: Divide Nigeria in two to avoid bloodshed/SHUT-UP GHADDAFI

Al-Ghaddafi should shut-up his mouth and close his eyes on what is happening in Nigeria. Ghaddafi does not really mean well for us if he actually want us to split due to the crises that claimed the lives of so many Nigerians in the recent Jos mayhem. Could the same Ghaddafi recall that his authorities ordered the execution of many Nigerians in Libya on Thursday,August 7, 2009? Why will he do that if he so much claim that he love Nigerians and would come down here to dictate to our people that the best solution to stop Jos crises was only by dividing Nigerian into Christian and Muslim. Did he recall that those Nigerians he executed were both Christians and Muslims? Okay, Let me remind Ghaddafi once more that countries like the United States of America, Isreal, Russia, etc have more than four core religions such as Christian, Muslim, Hindus and  Budusist  yet they exist and wax strong as world powers today. Two good heads they say is better than one, Nigeria better as one country only that our Government is deficient in the welfare of the common Nigerians. Ghaddafi should stop yanking religious sentiment to split us or plunge us into hating our fellow Nigerians. God has made it that we must co-exist as one and there is nothing you can do about that because you can’t question the personality of God. Dictate that to your fellow Libyans and not to Nigerians.

Comrade Favour Chuks Obele NATIONAL TREASURER,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN STUDENTS(NANS)


text: User talk:Technhque

title: User talk:Technhque


text: User talk:Triduc01

title: User talk:Triduc01


text: User talk:Dillligent11111

title: User talk:Dillligent11111


text: User talk:Naser53

title: User talk:Naser53


text: User talk:Rsraob

title: User talk:Rsraob


text: User talk:YourBadRomance

title: User talk:YourBadRomance


text: User talk:Stenholt

title: User talk:Stenholt


text: User talk:Огірко О.В.

title: User talk:Огірко О.В.


text:
User talk:K3vin

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  14:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:K3vin


text: User talk:Piandao

title: User talk:Piandao


text: User talk:Live3DStudios

title: User talk:Live3DStudios


text: User talk:Alts110

title: User talk:Alts110


text: User talk:Skeggino

title: User talk:Skeggino


text: User talk:Albanian222

title: User talk:Albanian222


text: User talk:Sanammb

title: User talk:Sanammb


text:
Talk:British Airways cabin crew begins strike

Review of revision 980333 [Failed]

 * Aargh! BBC totally rewrote the article. I'll just remove that bit.


text: User talk:Boxoa

title: User talk:Boxoa


text: User talk:PaulDriggers

title: User talk:PaulDriggers


text: User talk:Laenderboy

title: User talk:Laenderboy


text: User talk:10 PAvEL

title: User talk:10 PAvEL


text: User talk:Navaneeth B

title: User talk:Navaneeth B


text: User talk:Edo198

title: User talk:Edo198


text: User talk:Oleirosuniversal

title: User talk:Oleirosuniversal


text: User talk:Bolmedias

title: User talk:Bolmedias


text: User talk:HAF 932

title: User talk:HAF 932


text: User talk:Santos M A

title: User talk:Santos M A


text: User talk:אילייה10

title: User talk:אילייה10


text: User talk:P.cygler

title: User talk:P.cygler


text: User talk:TAtabaki

title: User talk:TAtabaki


text: User talk:Felipe1296

title: User talk:Felipe1296


text: User talk:Loquendo1997

title: User talk:Loquendo1997


text: User talk:Laxman2013

title: User talk:Laxman2013


text: User talk:Nsylvains

title: User talk:Nsylvains


text:
2010 Chile earthquakes: Government confirms 452 dead

March 20, 2010 Chilean Government confirmed 452 deaths caused by the earthquake and tsunami that struck the central and south zones of Chile on February 27 and the Pichilemu earthquake on March 11. The official death toll was released yesterday by the Interior Undersecretary Rodrigo Ubilla.

Ubilla explained that "after a rigorous work in which participated Carabineros, the Investigation Police, the Medical Legal Service, and the Civil Registry, and was later checked by the Interior Undersecretary, we made a unique list of dead people and of denunciations of presumed dead."

In spite of this, Ubilla said that there are just 359 identified dead people, with death certificates and cause of death. He added that in 67 other cases, the dead people were identified by RUT (identification number), but there are no death certificates issued, that is the tool "that allows us to clarify if the death was produced directly by the earthquake or the tsunami." Carabineros reports, at least, 97 presumed disgraces denunciations, related to the cataclysm.


text: User talk:Aimaruribarri

title: User talk:Aimaruribarri


text: User talk:Peachvalley

title: User talk:Peachvalley


text: User talk:Alby15656

title: User talk:Alby15656


text: User talk:XoLayzZzXo

title: User talk:XoLayzZzXo


text: User talk:Nedim2

title: User talk:Nedim2


text: User talk:19460cars

title: User talk:19460cars


text: User talk:Antony jimenez

title: User talk:Antony jimenez


text: User talk:Ismailt

title: User talk:Ismailt


text: User talk:Fniyazi

title: User talk:Fniyazi


text: Comments:Baby dies after being found abandoned behind shop in Gwent, Wales


text: User talk:Sharan nn

title: User talk:Sharan nn


text: User talk:Vermai

title: User talk:Vermai


text:
Talk:Baby dies after being found abandoned behind shop in Gwent, Wales

Length
Is their anyway to shorten what the kid said about finding the baby to just the bare details, or to break it apart though the story? Irunongames •  play  17:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't really understand the question. What exactly do you mean by this? -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 19:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Asiating

title: User talk:Asiating


text: User talk:Umer ejaz2010

title: User talk:Umer ejaz2010


text: User talk:Kool1938

title: User talk:Kool1938


text: User talk:Itsmezan

title: User talk:Itsmezan


text: User talk:Laurentzius

title: User talk:Laurentzius


text: User talk:Faybj

title: User talk:Faybj


text: User talk:Rohanchoraghe

title: User talk:Rohanchoraghe


text: User talk:LilCasonova11

title: User talk:LilCasonova11


text: User talk:Eligna

title: User talk:Eligna


text: User talk:Mizero

title: User talk:Mizero


text: User talk:- -HereN- -

title: User talk:- -HereN- -


text: User talk:Samperkinssamperkins

title: User talk:Samperkinssamperkins


text: User talk:Wikilung

title: User talk:Wikilung


text: User talk:Snko45

title: User talk:Snko45


text: User talk:Insufficient

title: User talk:Insufficient


text: User talk:Jcsotita

title: User talk:Jcsotita


text: User talk:Arthuroarujo

title: User talk:Arthuroarujo


text:
Talk:2010 Chile earthquakes: Government confirms 452 dead

Edit protected request
editprotected Please add Category:2010 Pichilemu earthquake and Category:O'Higgins Region. --Diego Grez return fire 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Benny the mascot (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


text: Comments:2010 Chile earthquakes: Government confirms 452 dead


text: User talk:Evialfadhl

title: User talk:Evialfadhl


text:
Severe sandstorm strikes Beijing, China

March 21, 2010 A severe sandstorm has struck north-west China over the past few weeks, reaching Beijing on Saturday morning. The sandstorm, which covered homes, streets, and cars in dust, has left the sky a murky yellow. The air quality was rated as level five. Beijing's Weather Bureau issued a warning for the sandstorm, and advised citizens to stay in their homes until it passes. As much as 1500 micrograms per cubic meter of dust were reported to be airborne.

Beijing has experienced unusually cold weather this year, with temperatures below freezing at night, even after the start of spring. The sandstorm is affecting more than 50 million people, and forecasters do not see signs of it stopping soon. The desertification of the western China and the Mongolian steppes has made the annual spring sandstorm become worse in the recent years, reaching countries such as South Korea and Japan. The sandstorm has turned the rain and snow yellow.

The storm also impacted Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Shanxi, Shaanxi, and Hebei for a total of 270 million people over an area of 1.8 million square kilometers. It is expected the storm will last until Monday.

title: Severe sandstorm strikes Beijing, China


text: User talk:Fran trombon

title: User talk:Fran trombon


text: User talk:Capt. Helix

title: User talk:Capt. Helix


text: User talk:Sarunstha475

title: User talk:Sarunstha475


text: User talk:Thuan0103185

title: User talk:Thuan0103185


text: User talk:Claudio.def

title: User talk:Claudio.def


text: User talk:KnoW3yak

title: User talk:KnoW3yak


text: User talk:StevenMario

title: User talk:StevenMario


text: User talk:Aiyizo

title: User talk:Aiyizo


text: User talk:Rith007

title: User talk:Rith007


text: User talk:Asimashiqlaang0305

title: User talk:Asimashiqlaang0305


text: User talk:Peanjomsar

title: User talk:Peanjomsar


text:
Thread:Comments:US plan for broadband Internet released/go broadband!/reply (2)

Sold down the river for fcc profits just like television.


text: User talk:Shikhark mehta

title: User talk:Shikhark mehta


text: User talk:Nedim Ardoğa

title: User talk:Nedim Ardoğa


text: User talk:Jassenye

title: User talk:Jassenye


text: User talk:Bkc1701

title: User talk:Bkc1701


text: User talk:Sherhil

title: User talk:Sherhil


text: User talk:بن علو خالد

title: User talk:بن علو خالد


text:
Teen arrested in Wal-Mart racial case

March 20, 2010

A 16-year-old boy has been arrested after he hijacked the Washington Township, New Jersey Wal-Mart's public announcement system to make racial comments. The boy was arrested Friday night and then released into his parents' custody. He was charged with harassment as a bias crime.

The boy, whose name was not released, faces up to a year in a youth detention center if convicted. Police say that they are not sure if the incident was planned or improvised, although they say it does not affect the case against the boy.

Witnesses say that on March 14 they heard a male voice announce, "Attention Wal-Mart Customers: All black people, leave the store now!" The store's manager quickly made an apology, followed by Wal-Mart's headquarters. Police say that they did not record anyone making the announcement, although they do have a video of three persons, including the suspect, standing near the voice intercom telephone around the time of the incident.

"We are just as appalled by this incident as our customers," Wal-Mart said in a statement. "Whoever did this is just wrong and acted in an inappropriate manner. Clearly, this is completely unacceptable to us and to our customers." The incident is unrelated to the February 2009 lawsuit which claimed that Wal-Mart underpaid black workers.

title: Teen arrested in Wal-Mart racial case


text: User talk:Hiba 15

title: User talk:Hiba 15


text: User talk:Drudgar

title: User talk:Drudgar


text: User talk:K'lib

title: User talk:K'lib


text: User talk:Michaeltmaloney

title: User talk:Michaeltmaloney


text: User talk:Maqsude

title: User talk:Maqsude


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2010/March

Tips on reviewing articles
I've worked up a draft of a Tips on reviewing articles page, inspired by what I thought I understood from the How to peer-review thread.

Does it at all resemble anything the community is going to want to use?

Here are a couple of specific points that came up regarding the checklist: --Pi zero (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to add a line under "Is it news?" about how long after publication significant changes are admissible — but I couldn't find a guideline I believed. The closest I know of is at Archive conventions where it says 36 hours in one paragraph and 48 hours in another, both of which are larger than I thought was current practice.
 * Is there a policy/guideline on use of supplementary pages, like the recent Plane crashes into office block in Austin, Texas/suicide note ?
 * A lot of these things are 'vague' deliberately, not just through inconsistency in collaboration. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Developing template
Should the developing template go at the top or the bottom of a developing article page? -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 13:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Current practise is to place it at the top. I tend to slot templates under the date, but I think I'm in a minority there. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the preload template (New page) puts it at the bottom, so I leave it there. I wouldn't object to changing it though, all the similar templates seem to go at the top. the wub "?!"  22:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I generally prefer to place it at the very top, above the date template. I think that's better, since it's more visible there. But, I don't think it ultimately matters that much as long as it's in there somewhere. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter. Top, bottom whatever. (traditionally its gone at the bottom though). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * "tradition" was at the bottom. The template has now been modified to permit the insertion of comments (a more gentle notice than cleanup); In such usage, I'd definitely place it at the top. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the top, though I don't think it matters. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It'd be useful to modify the templates so that it can be put at the top of the page imo. Pmlineditor discuss 12:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I've modified the preloaded page for the Howdy and competition templates. Probably quite a few other places you can create an article using a different preloaded page. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation - a proposal for losing it
I've just removed several people from the scoop distribution list; their mailboxes on the wikinewsie.org domain were full.

The names that stick in mind were; Julian Colton, Michael Valentine, Joseph Anderson, there may have been one or two more.

Passwords can be reset; accounts can be reconfigured as forwarding; scoop is spammed at a level that is easily manageable with a semi-decent client.

I propose:
 * 1) Detail scoop current recipients
 * 2) Contacted listed accredited not recipients
 * 3) no response in 2 months, de-accredit
 * 4) get response; return to scoop in some way
 * 5) for future, if scoop fails/mailbox full
 * 6) One warning via on-wiki contact methods (talk page & email)
 * 7) De-accredit 30 days later

Thoughts? Alternate process? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I dont see an issue with that. If people aren't using their boxes, they don't need them.  It really doesn't take but a few minutes to hook up (For example) Gmail to fetch all your Wikinewsie.org email and stick them in a folder of their own.  I turned off spam filtering at the Wikinewsie level and let gmail do it all.  I get maybe 1 slip through a month. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 20:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Time it takes to review articles
I've noticed that articles that need review get marked "Overdue" if it's been waiting in line for a long time - nice idea, but I don't think it works too well. I've seen quite a few articles sit in line for over 30 hours before being published; this article is approaching 48! Therefore, I am proposing that we set a time limit (let's say 24 hours) for an article to be reviewed. If the article sits in line for more than 24 hours, then anyone, including the writer himself, may automatically publish the artcle without a review. This policy would dramatically cut the averge wait time for our articles. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think that's a good idea at all. Supposing that someone posts a copyright violation or article that is biased/clearly not up to our standards, not noticed for 24 hours (entirely possible given our lack of users, especially on weekdays), and published. That wouldn't make us look very good, would it? No; I think everything should be independently reviewed by a trusted user. The peer review policy is there for a reason. IMO, it's better to have a good article that's a little old, rather than a more recent article that's badly written. Another difficulty is that the author of an article won't be able to fully publish it by themselves if he doesn't have Editor privileges, given that we have flagged revisions and other anti self-publish measures installed. I don't think this is going to work. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Short response: Nope, Not gonna happen. Longer response:  We require independent review of our articles for a number of reasons.  Some of which include fun things like spam to more sedate reasons like accuracy.  Additionally, We only got listed on Google News because of independent review, pull that and we're gone. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My article has been waiting to be reviewed for two days! Are we going to let similar articles get stale simply because people are unwilling to review them? That is completely unfair to the writers! Furthermore, would it help to increase the time limit to 36 hours in order to give people more time to check everything? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Peer review is not a rubber-stamp. Publish yourself and expect a caution. Repeat? Expect a block and de-editored. Certain contributors work gets passed over because of the extensive work known to be required to bring it into compliance with the style guide and various other policies. I suggest you review the discussion elsewhere on what various people do in reviewing. Then, look at articles that do get published and, in some cases, the considerable work required to bring them up to that publishable standard. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have any issues over my articles??? If so, then fail them, don't keep me wondering for two days what's going on! The same applies for other articles: we should not prevent them from going stale just because we're too lazy to review! Benny the mascot (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You don't seem to understand, Benny. It sure can be unfair to the writers when a story isn't reviewed in a timely manner (it's happened to me personally, I can sympathise), but there are other considerations as well, which I think far outweigh that. For instance: it contravenes many of our policies, would get us kicked off Google News (a big no-no since we're already struggling to increase/maintain our reader base), and results in the possibility that a copyvio or biased/badly written/inaccurate article would appear in the main page and feeds. That would make us look bad, which is even worse in our situation, since we don't have a great reputation as it is for being the most accurate news source in town. 36 hours - or even more than that - wouldn't guarantee enough time for someone to be certain to go over an article. The negatives far outweigh the positives for self-publishing, I think. Perhaps we should look at ways to encourage reviewers to review more (like having a bot ping IRC when an article has been waiting for review for too long? i dunno). Tempodivalse [talk]  01:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not know the sport of Basketball at all. I do not consider myself qualified to review that.
 * I loathe reality television with a passion. Particularly where it is related to shallow, insipid, mental-midget faux celebrities.
 * I'm not the only reviewer. The above two are clear reasons why I'm not devoting my time to these particular article topics, my earlier comment was more general and intended to try and point out why numerous articles languish unreviewed. I'd rather do a good review on something I have some basis to feel qualified to review and not be actively, and aware of, a bias against. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a terrible terrible idea. Under no circumstances should we re-introduce self-publication; it would destroy what credibility we have. If your articles are taking too long to get reviewed, then write articles in such a way that other editors will want to publish them. --Killing Vector (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I write articles that actually interest me, but never only to satisfy the tastes of other editors. That is something I will never do, and I will not let anyone tell me what I can and can't write. As for your comment on self-publishing, I can live with not having it. But I would still like to see a time limit that triggers an automatic publication by another reviewer. For example, let's say that the ITV article stays in line for the next 36 hours. Since I'm not involved in the writing of that article, then I can publish it even without having to formally pass it. Would that work for everyone? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How does that make sense? If time runs out, an article gets automatically published. That is exactly what you said previously and the answer is still no.  I'm sorry you feel slighted.  I'm not sure if you've ever done it, but reviewing is a fair amount of work and we don't have enough reviewers.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I don't think that would work out well either. The problems laid out with self-publishing above still persist if a reviewer publishes an article without even looking at it - accuracy, neutrality, copyvio, etc will all go through and that's unacceptable. Sorry if you've feel slighted. One suggestion - you're an editor, if you want to help remedy this problem, perhaps you'd like to just review others' articles yourself whenever you have the time? My motto is, you want something to be done right, do it yourself. :-) Tempodivalse [talk]  02:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was actually about to review the ITV article, thank you very much. :) I've noticed, however, that reviewing every other article written tonight won't change the fact that the gadget is counting days instead of hours for my article! I was shocked once I saw the words "2 days" instead of "48 hours" next to my article. Oh well...I suppose it's nice that we've prepared the gadget for these things! Benny the mascot (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, you can't publish your own articles of course. But if you review others' articles, then there's a higher chance someone else will review yours since there are fewer in the backlog to choose from. And, by reviewing, you can at least spare others the frustration that you have yourself experienced with staleness. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Wikinews has a limited user base, still. I see the subject of your article is a local HS basketball game. I am not really surprised that it was hard to find reviewers. We don't have coverage of NBA or college basketball that is worth mentioning. That said, it is really regrettable that your article didn't get reviewed — at a glance — it appears to be written well within WN:SG. I guess it boils down to time and people resources. People naturally decide to review articles that seem interesting to them first. We can't force anybody to do anything, since we are all volunteers. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I will say this one more time, Peer review is not a rubber stamp. I worked too long, and too hard to get Wikinews reportage seen as respectable enough to be listed in Google News, and even used as a source for Wikipedia, to throw it away on an ill-judged suggestion to slap a rubber stamp on things. Might I suggest you look at the discussion around losing editor status? Virtually everyone with a reasonable number of articles to their name has lost some – for a variety of reasons. Nobody is dictating what you should, or should not, write about. I frankly expressed areas where I have no interest, or experience/qualification, suited to reviewing the examples you cite. I will reiterate the point; this is a volunteer project, as such you volunteer to write what is interesting to you; those reviewing also volunteer. Browbeating people at 3am is generally a bad idea. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read the archived discussions regarding RockerballAustralia, and I think that since then we still haven't found a good way to clear the backlog. I think the 36-hour time limit I'm proposing would motivate editors to review articles well before 36 hours have passed. I don't think we'll even have any articles approaching 36 hours, since everything would have been reviewed so quickly. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your reasoning behind the suggestion, that the threat of auto-reviewing would encourage people to review more quickly. But still, I think it's highly risky. Supposing there are no people around willing or capable to review (we do have days when there's practically no activity at all) and a spammy/factually incorrect article does get auto-published? No, I'd rather not have that. I also don't think that system will keep us in Google News, whichis probably one of the biggest factors weighing in this. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I didn't say it in my comment because I think it to be inconceivable ... but for the record NO on some sort of system that let's article's get autopublished if they are not disputed within 36 hours (or any time-frame). --SVTCobra 03:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Although on an absolute scale, an article dying of staleness unreviewed is a big problem, on a relative scale it is dwarfed to insignificance next to the problem you're proposing to create. You can't force volunteer editors to review articles more promptly by threatening to destroy the project if they don't; there are a couple of flaws in that plan.

 * Here's another way to look at it: The standards imposed by peer review are a huge step forward that we managed to take in the past, overcoming a challenge that we had to overcome, and removing those standards would be reversing that victory and giving up.  We've got another challenge we're facing now, and we haven't figured out yet how to defeat it — so far we're harassing the enemy while we look for weaknesses in its defenses — but we do know that retroactively losing the previous battle we fought isn't going to help.  --Pi zero (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose, the above proposal. Essentially per, , and . Cirt (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think its safe to say this proposal is not going anywhere. Instead of all beating up on Benny, lets try to make this conversation constructive. Review time is a problem in some cases. What cool ideas can we come up to fix that, without compromising standards? Perhaps we can split the review process into steps or something, so that one reviewer doesn't have to do the whole thing by him/her-self. Perhaps there is something we can do to make it easier for the reviewers to review articles- have inline describing where pieces of information came from so that it is easier for reviewers to verify articles. (These are just random ideas, not sure if they're good ideas, but if we can make reviewing easier, it will reduce the queue). Bawolff ☺☻ 12:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Guess what??? The system just cheated me out of an article (now too stale to fix) and 9 points in the writing contest... nice job everyone! Benny the mascot (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sucks. And during a writing contest adds insult to injury.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I can certainly sympathise with that. But, on a wider scale, this isn't a very big problem, as Pi zero so aptly described above, especially compared to what you're proposing - threatening to basically kill the project should reviews not be carried out in time. (And that still doesn't totally guarantee that reviews will be carried out quicker.) One of the reasons this particular article wasn't reviewed, I think, was that it was rather specialised, being concerned with basketball. A lot of our contributors, especially those in Europe, aren't very familiar with the sport, and I've noticed people tend to avoid reviewing articles on topics they don't know much about. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's an excerpt from a discussion at the proposal watercooler back in September.
 * While we're brainstorming, though — Reviewing is a multi-faceted operation, with a specific number of facets (copyright, newsworthiness, verifiability, NPOV, style). So, what would happen if we (somehow) split up the review process into these individual facets, so that different editors could certify that an article meets the different criteria?
 * Would reviewing a subset of the criteria be enough easier than reviewing them all that it would make any observable difference in how fast articles get reviewed?
 * How could one readily be sure, if different criteria are being reviewed at different times prior to publication, that all of them are actually being reviewed by editors?
 * --Pi zero (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First question: No, unless there was a highlevel of communicastion between the reviewers and they did their reveiwing simultaniously. Second: see previous answer.--RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 * More targeted criticism sounds like a good thing.

 * My current notion is that reviewing would be easier if there were some really well-designed help on how to review (no I'm not talking prescriptivism here), so that reviewers — and not just new ones — could move through the review process with confident efficiency. Incremental progress, perhaps, and not terribly sexy, but progress.  (That's one take on why I started the previous thread; I'm working now on assimilating the great responses there.)  --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @Pi zero: Actually, I think that splitting up reviews among different people would make the process more time-consuming and confusing than it already is - as it is, we're lucky to have two or three users who are willing to review articles on an average day; if we forced them all to review the same page, then that would, methinks, drastically increase the already problematic time needed to get an article out of the queue. No, I think single-reviewer is probably most efficient and still fairly reliable; the trick is how to encourage people to review more. (Of course, I'm not one to talk here, I almost never review anything myself, i just don't find it interesting :-b ) I think we should try brainstorming ideas how to increase that motivation. Perhaps (just off the top of my head): have a bot ping IRC whenever an article has been waiting for review for over X hours; have some sort of site-wide notice that says how many articles need reivew; have some sort of "taskforce" editors can sign up to, where they promise to try and review any article over X hours still waiting for review if they see them, etc. But I agree, this is a big issue and certainly needs to be addressed. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a bot already pings irc (#wikinews-en, not #wikinews) when an article gets tagged review (Although having a bot remind people and generally be annoying once an article become &ge 12 hours late, might be a good idea). There is an option in gadgets under special:preferences to see what articles are waiting in the sitenotice. I think users are aware when articles are in need of review. Reviewing (And like Tempo, I really can't talk too much either, as i almost never review anything) is not "fun" and takes a relatively large amount of work. Most non-fun wikitasks can be broken up into very small pieces - do boring thing for about three minutes, then do fun stuff, then come back to boring stuff later. Reviews cannot be split up that way. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to somehow get writing contest points for articles that are kept waiting for too long? I really would like to have those 9 points to move up the rankings! :-P Benny the mascot (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Informal commitment
It seems clear that not all of the editors are actually willing to review. Therefore, I think it might be best to have a few editors informally commit themselves to reducing the backlog. We would, for example, sign a statement acknowledging that we promise to keep waiting times below... let's say 12 hours. If we have any article that waits longer than 12 hours, then we would hold ourselves accountable in some way. Would any of you be willing to make some sort of an informal agreement, and do you think it would work? Benny the mascot (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd like to, but my commitments and availability fluctuate, often at short notice. Also, as others have said, in the right mood I will make the effort to understand a sport I know nothing about, but unless I'm 100% 'in the zone' (yes, I hate that phrase too, but it was the first to spring to mind) then I'd be risking the integrity of the review. If something has been waiting some time, then provided it's a reasonable time of day to someone, a polite request in IRC or an actively editing user's talkpage often helps. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's mostly why I'm suggesting an informal commitment. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing Benny: I don't review very often, but when I *do* review, I review things that I'm familiar with. I wouldn't expect that many people here would want to review an indepth article about... say, the ups and downs of some group of researchers attempting to create a boron-11/proton fusion reactor:P. It's just too narrow a subject field for most people to have any knowledge about. And if you don't know anything about a subject, you can't really tell if the information in the article is being presented properly. So regardless of whether or not people signed up to review articles on a regular basis, it still wouldn't help get an article about an arcane subject published. The same is true of micro-news or local news. If news is too local, people won't touch it because they don't know enough about what's being talked about in the article to fairly judge the content.

 * This is not an issue that can be fixed by forming a reviewing committee (or somesuch thing), but is rather a longer term problem that will eventually be solved by Wikinews reaching a critical mass of contributors and reviewers. Once we have enough people, there will always be someone in a forgiving enough mood to review local or micro news articles.

 * For now, the only thing you can do is try to not write articles where the subject matter is too narrow for a potential reviewer to feel comfortable with. Gopher65talk 01:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from, but when the current system allows articles to sit in the queue for several hours–or even days–then how can we attract more contributors enough to reach that critical mass? In order to improve the project, we need to review articles more quickly. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * I started a full-time work project, with a long commute on the 15th. Up at 5:30am, just cooking food now (I'm on UTC). I wish I could've devoted more time to this because I want to see writers improve. Wikinews generally doesn't seem like work, but I also need downtime and am not, to my mind, on-the-ball enough to come in and plough through a half-dozen reviews. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is WN original reporting reliable?
Does the Wikinews community believe that Wikinews original reporting is suitable for use as a reliable source on Wikipedia?

The question of Wikinews OR reliability came up over at Wikipedia, and the questioner was told decisively that "Wikinews has no editorial oversight or means to ensure the accountability of its editors." To be clear, I'm posting here to raise these issues here; I obviously can't control whether people here put in their oar over at Wikipedia, and even if I could I wouldn't trust my judgment as to whether they should — my judgment is predictable, I like to err on the soft-spoken side; but it does seem to me, from the following, that perhaps Wikinews needs to work on representing itself better on its own pages before it undertakes to represent itself on Wikipedia's talk pages.

I politely inquired, in that thread, about the justification for these claims about Wikinews, and was directed to (besides talk archives over there) a passage in WN:OR, written in 2005 and apparently not significantly altered since then, which when taken out of context reads

 * Wikinews ... has no formal approval process for authors ... [i]t is an open, public news forum, with transitory quality control, at best.

Now, it seems clear to me why we don't spend a lot of time tinkering with our policy and guideline pages: we're endlessly too busy meeting deadlines. But we can't expect our editorial control measures to be taken seriously by others if we don't bother to update antiquated official policy statements saying that those editorial control measures don't exist. Regardless of whether we actually consider those measures sufficient to render our original reporting "reliable".

(The thread I'm referring to is w:Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources.)

Which brings me back to my original point: do we believe our original reporting to be reliable in that sense? --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 * In short: Yes. In length: Yes.  They have a point though, that page is out of date, oh well, someone should update it.  Basically we only allow OR through our accredited reporters who are all trusted users in the community.  Occasionally we get OR from non-accredited users, and generally we make sure there is lots and lots of sources.  Even for those of us who've been around this rodeo a few times have to prove our OR.  Either by forwarded emails to scoop or similar means.  Heck, I've even gotten harassed for my OR (and recently too).  Past that, we still require an independent editor to review the article before publishing, just like the rest of ours.
 * Also, so far to my memory (the last say 18 months) we've had no issue with our OR. No issue in the form of someone coming up to us and complaining that no they didn't say that, or no that's not how an event happened.  Our stories are good enough for basically everyone (Even Google News), just not good enough for Wikipedia.  It's always been that way, but that's ok, their pricks anyways.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 17:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm mainly with Shaka here, we have several measures in place to make sure everything is credible. We've even been accepted by google news, right? Doesn't that count for anything? :-) That statement you highlighted should be removed from the policy page, it's not really accurate since we've installed Flagged Revisions. As far as I can remember, haven't ever had anyone, i.e. an interviewee, come up to us and say "This isn't true" or "I never said that" over one of our OR pieces. I'm not sure what wikipedia considers a "Reliable source", but if they accept bottom-of-the-barrel stuff like Daily Mail, and other user-controlled things like IMDB, i think they probably should accept us too. (Whether they actually will do so is a different matter.) <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  18:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two bits by "Mainly" he means mostly everything but where I start calling Wikipedian's pricks. I think we all universally accept that as truth, but tempo's a nice guy and would never say that outloud.  B) I made it dead right after my post.  I checked the version history, it was there from the very start. I guess that was ok in 2k5, but that is crap, even before we got flagged rev's and such. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 18:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, back in '05 we were rather haphazard, I must say, with our news coverage, from looking at the archives. :-) That could have been an appropriate statement to issue then, but not now, 'specially seeing as we have flagged revisions, reviewing and such ... <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Were you looking for an argument? Or abuse? :-P The whole point of FlaggedRevs was to make the project more credible; you've seen the process - even if only on a little OR - do you think we do due diligence? That's all, realistically, Wikipedia can do on any source. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts: Is our OR acceptable as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Well, we have buttoned down a lot of the issues. I feel we have attained sufficient editorial control. Rogue publishing seems to be a thing of the past, as well as published vandalism. However, specifically on OR it really comes down to trust that we have built in our fellow contributors over years. For example, when says that he heard something over the radio scanner that he listens to, I have faith and confidence that he is reporting fairly and accurately, because that is who Jason is. But how can we really make such confidence transferable to other projects ... I mean, it really boils down to: "Well, we know and trust him." I don't know if there is a workable answer, other than being extremely strict with OR notes, even with Accredited Reporters. That could mean audio recordings being made mandatory. Basically, a great deal of added transparency. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Wikinews OR is reliable for Wikipedia purposes now. But Wikipedia is just as likely to want to reference old articles as new ones, and things haven't always been so strict here. The trouble is there's no sharp dividing line between "reliable" and "unreliable" articles. A pragmatic suggestion (with my WP hat on) would be to consider articles published after Wikinews got onto Google News (I'm not sure of the exact date) as "reliable" - I know that many of the procedures were in place well before, but that event marks a real external endorsement of reliability. the wub "?!"  00:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Update: Wikipedia user Blueboar has started an RFC: w:Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In light of the doG-awful mess the petty argument on Wikipedia has turned into, I have made this change to Wikinews policy. I have been working to get this project accepted as credible, and making a far, far, better effort to be respectable than a huge number of sources Wikipedians love to cite since before I was invited to Wikimania '08 in Alexandria. The ill-informed, and frankly, "projectist" reaction I've seen is no less than I'd expect. There is not a single name I recognise on the list of Wikipedians opposing accepting Wikinews as a source that I recognise from any of the "inner circles" I am, or might be able to have once considered myself part of. Are they even particularly prolific content contributors? I'm in contact with people who've done FA-quality content on several lang/proj combinations; these people see the value in what is attempted with Wikinews, they understand the risks to public awareness from sources like the NYT and Washington Post retreating behind paywalls. An example I'd cite on that was an OTRS ticket I handles 2-3 years ago; it was from someone indignant in Turkey, challenging the right of the WMF to have a single mention of "Armenian Genocide"; I could – PDF, by PDF – show them what the NYT published at the time as a total refutation of their argument that the entire 'incident' was fabricated decades later.

Right now, most of the sources shouting they will 'go hide behind a paywall' expect to have to give away some articles while they're current just so they can remind the world they exist. My questions have to be: When will Wikipedia be pragmatic and accept that a peer-reviewed Wikinews article was checked against available-at-the-time sources? And, Why should CNN or FOX NEWS be assumed to be credible in comparison to the current Wikinews structure that generally appears 'hostile' to would-be contributors with an agenda of any political hue?

I really think these are serious, critical, and appropriate questions. Rumour has it that Erik Moeller had a meeting with people from Google and Wikinews was delisted within hours. The project, as it stands today, is utterly different and has all the checks-and-balances that gave Google pause at that time. Taking them from naturally suspicious, to trusting our editorial review processes tool a lot of time and effort; we've remove privileges from those found not to do due diligence. The process is hugely more transparent than anything you'll find in the mainstream. Just get your head round the fact that we're not a community of Wikipedians. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 * WP does set the bar pretty high ... WP doesn't consider itself reliable. And don't we have some policy against considering WP reliable? I agree with you, however, that we are not less reliable than a majority of sources that are considered to be newspapers or news websites, and on average we probably have far less POV. --SVTCobra 00:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, Brian, you're misjudging the nature of the discussion over there, and in your posts there reacting to what you think is going on, you're sounding paranoid and making Wikinews look bad. WP:AGF is a very Zen thing that takes years to master, and part of it is that you don't mouth off about how everyone's out to get you, even if they are.  In fact, there are some idiots in the thread, but most of the significant contributors are intelligent and open-minded and are seriously considering the serious issues involved.  Could you please refrain from going out of your way to drive off possible allies?  --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (I think my post above was rather rude, and I apologize. I guess the stress over at Wikipedia was getting to me.)  --Pi zero (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There are various things I could say about the weaselly way WP:AGF is used; "Zen" certainly wouldn't be anywhere near my assumption on the policy, and the interminable nitpicking that can see a simple BOLD decision buggered about for months, and then magically get archived when you're not looking.
 * I'm not trying to drive off possible allies, never the intention; but, I do not suffer fools gladly - if at all. Were people posing clear questions that I could provide answers to, fine. If they're getting into arcana, I will not devote the time to it; Wikipedia has thousands of contributors, it can look after itself - my time is better spent on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, looks like the en.wp RFC has gone nowhere. I can understand some of the opposers' reasoning, although i still disagree with it. Oh well, i'm getting away from that distraction and back to writing news, waiting for the huge OR scoop that will make us famous worldwide :-b <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the RFC is going nowhere because we keep talking about abstract situations. Let's talk about an actual article instead. Is there a specific OR piece that someone wants to use as a source? Benny the mascot (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

We could always chose an interview, imo. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  21:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving discussion revived
I'd like to revive this discussion regarding the archival policy, especially after I just reverted a huge addition of text to a day-old article. Basically I want to change the time limit on WN:ARCHIVE from 36 to 24 hours. Comments? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that is an interesting idea, but it would not have to be set in stone. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 00:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * As I remarked here last month (in relation to tips on reviewing articles), WN:ARCHIVE already isn't consistent on this horizon; it says 36 hours in one paragraph, and 48 in another. Though I'm not sure the latter paragraph should even exist anymore, since flaggedrevs.

 * 24 hours sounds reasonable to me. --Pi zero (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

 * 24 hours seems to make the most sense rather than 36. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  03:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

that 24 hours is the maximum --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * change to 24 hours. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, 24 hrs seems to be the most logical. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  21:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Modified to 24 hours per community consensus. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/technical/archives/2010/March

Clean Delete Reasons
Would an admin mind adding b:MediaWiki:Gadget-CleanDeletions.js here? This would keep the deletion log uncluttered and help in navigation. To add this, one needs to import (copy?) the page from WB, import/copy b:MediaWiki:Gadget-CleanDeleteReasons and update MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition accordingly. Pmlineditor discuss 15:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Maybe if you told me what it does. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When you go to delete a page, if the auto-summary contains the substring:

It will change the autosummary to be empty. (personally, I might consider the auto-summary to be useful, (I'm lazy, and who wants to write their own summary when going rouge ;) but i don't see any harm as importing it as a gadget). Bawolff ☺☻ 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * content was
 * page was empty
 * content before blanking was
 * page was empty

 * Sounds fine to me. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What Bawolff said. Sorry for not explaining what it was; was in a hurry. Pmlineditor discuss 06:00, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

proposal: hide the search this discussion on lqt
I propose we hide (with css) the search this discussion box on the Liquid threads box, as people are getting confused, typing the section they want to create into that box (and thus by following links, creating pages like Al shabaab ondiscussionpage:Comments:Somali opposition group al-Shabaab to block WFP food aid), instead of clicking the create new discussion link. See also 22678. Thoughts on hiding the search box? Bawolff ☺☻ 03:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

 * When I was testing out lqt, I was mistaken there too, so I agree that the search bar should hidden. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  04:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. It works ok for a well established, long thread, but for our purposes the search box is nothing but a nuisance. I'd like to see it removed —- or even hidden with an expandable clickie link to show the full box. Gopher65talk 04:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

✅ [http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Common.css&diff=972825&oldid=954341 Oh Oh, it's CSS magic... ya knowwwww] -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 07:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, whitespace looks a little odd now, or maybe its just me. Anyone else think so? (If it isn't just me I'll change it to visibility:hidden). Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Regional council fights to keep sustainable growth on Australian Sunshine Coast
Lost in limbo. Not sure how to go about looking for more like it (though that might be partly because I don't really understand what happened to it, other than a vague notion that Easy Peer Review was missing some cylinders around that time); I stumbled on this one because I was idly browsing RockerballAustralia's Special:Contributions. --Pi zero (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahh. This article got lost because it wasn't "sighted" during the review; that caused it not to appear in the newsroom (because of the publish tag), but at the same time not appear on front page or RSS feeds due to it being unsighted. This is why I encourage everyone to always check if an article has been auto-sighted by EZPR after reviewing. There are probably a few other unfortunate articles that got lost that way; but i'm not aware of any easy way to find them (DPLs, perhaps?) Tempodivalse [talk]  03:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * DPL solves all problems (and soon even more on next wmf update):

 addfirstcategorydate=true namespace=main category=published stablepages=exclude count=10 notcategory=archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=brief  (Note this will also include stuff published before flagged revs was used. since its ordered we can ignore stuff once those articles start appearing. This should probably be worked into the newsroom or something). Bawolff ☺☻ 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There was one other EzPR failiure (Woman blows herself up in Iraq; over 140 casualties), and 2 self-published for recent articles. The rest go back to 2009 (about 5 of non-sighted but reviewed ones in December 2009). There's also Refinery explosion burning 10% of Puerto Rico's fuel which was reviewed by a non-editor and not sighted. Since its so old i think we should just leave it as is. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

 * A legitimately reviewed article that just didn't get sighted is one thing (would the act of sighting it now dispatch it to current newsfeeds? yikes), but we shouldn't allow articles dated post-flaggedrevs to lie around with a publish tag on them if they weren't legitimately published.

 * Should we (it appears we don't already) have a category for articles published before flaggedrevs? Either in addition to or even alternative to Category:Published?  It should then be possible to coax DPL into listing only published-but-unsighted articles that postdate flaggedrevs.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We could just sight those articles. I don't think we should have a category just for them. We could use the archived category to coax dpl not to list them. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Good point; category Archived should do for that particular technical problem.
 * There's another issue involved, though. In the recent discussion at WP:IRS, a sampling of archived articles to check their quality first turned up articles that pre-dated flaggedrevs — and the person doing the check simply didn't realize that without being told.  IMHO there should be some straightforward way of telling, by looking at an article, whether it pre-dates flaggedrevs.  The peer review template on the collaboration page is a telltale, but that again requires inside knowledge, and something on the article itself seems like a good idea — either a category, or a notice, or both.  I'm guessing that this would not be a lot of work because one would simply wire the publish template to do it.  --Pi zero (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion they were published by the standards of the time - its not like we published random crap, we still had standards, just less formal ones - and thus they don't need to be distinguished. (but thats just imho). I don't see how published could be used. If we really want to we could abuse date i suppose, but if we must do that, I'd much rather see a bot just add a new template. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There are new messages for you.
How to get rid of this please??? -- Cirt (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on chat on irc, I'm assuming you're refering to the LQT thing on the watchlist. Which i must say is rather ugly. add the folowing to special:mypage/vector.css

.lqt_watchlist_messages_notice {display:none}

Bawolff ☺☻ 00:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added it here too, . Will that work okay? -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you use monobook, yes. Bawolff ☺☻

Making it easier to resubmit for review
I think a "review" button (already on develop) should be added to tasks. Any thoughts? Benny the mascot (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * How much of the message from develop should be reproduced on tasks? The cut-rate version of this would be a line — I'm assuming it would be just below the one that lists tasks to be performed — that doesn't include either of the two extra reminders appended by develop, something like

 * If we wanted to include either or both of the reminders from develop, they should probably be an additional sentence after "reviewers.", but those reminders might be redundant, depending on what tasks were listed.

 * (My mock-up wouldn't actually work right because, in order to get the button, I used develop_to_review_link, since there is no tasks_to_review_link.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The reminders aren't needed, IMO. How can we get that button to work? Benny the mascot (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 * This would be an addOnloadHook for  on MediaWiki:Common.js, very similar to the existing addOnloadHook for   which is way down near the bottom of the file (with "develop" changed to "tasks" throughout).  --Pi zero (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (I've changed the button in the above mock-up to use the non-existent tasks_to_review_link. --Pi zero (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

 * I've made this change to tasks. Right now, though, there's no button, since the javascript patch hasn't been made (which would require an admin); so tasks always has the edit link that is, after all, what anyone with javascript turned off would see on develop.  --Pi zero (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, there is one possible problem with this, in that I gather tasks is sometimes used on articles that have already been published. Anyone have any ideas how best to address this?  --Pi zero (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never seen this before. Do you have an example? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Nope. I don't remember seeing it either.  Hopefully I was wrong, and, now that you've forced me to triple check, I'm going to operate on the assumption that I was wrong.  After all, the pre-existing message on tasks pretty much says that the article hasn't been published.  (I just got nervous when I noticed it was listed on Article flags, but the idea that that might just have been a minor glitch is reinforced by the fact that it isn't listed on Article stage tags .)  --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Okay, I'm consistently behind the curve, here. Article flags is the stuff that goes on disputed (hence unpublished) articles, and Article stage tags is the stuff that goes on undisputed articles.  So the only thing wrong with this picture is that there's nothing wrong with it.  At least I seem to be limiting my mistakes to this talk page (knock wood).   --Pi zero (talk) 03:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


text: Talk:Teen arrested in Wal-Mart racial case


text: Comments:Teen arrested in Wal-Mart racial case


text: User talk:Frank37

title: User talk:Frank37


text: User talk:Isis de Castro Silva

title: User talk:Isis de Castro Silva


text: User talk:Impeachesncream

title: User talk:Impeachesncream


text: User talk:חנן פישר

title: User talk:חנן פישר


text: User talk:Rmkstevenson

title: User talk:Rmkstevenson


text: User talk:Liege

title: User talk:Liege


text: User talk:Yegorm

title: User talk:Yegorm


text:
User talk:Recognizance

Welcome
Mike moral  ♪♫  20:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Recognizance


text: User talk:Katrin Sakharova

title: User talk:Katrin Sakharova


text: User talk:Kholland55

title: User talk:Kholland55


text: User talk:Miguel233

title: User talk:Miguel233


text: User talk:Giacomuzzo

title: User talk:Giacomuzzo


text: User talk:İrelav

title: User talk:İrelav


text: User talk:Ginagreenlee

title: User talk:Ginagreenlee


text: User talk:Natmaka

title: User talk:Natmaka


text: User talk:Elianeassis

title: User talk:Elianeassis


text:
Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2010/12

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

Last Updated: March 21, 2010

title: Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2010/12


text: User talk:Rugy96

title: User talk:Rugy96


text: User talk:Gabriel Durdos

title: User talk:Gabriel Durdos


text: User talk:Legalskeptic

title: User talk:Legalskeptic


text: User talk:Neospet

title: User talk:Neospet


text: User talk:Sugeesh

title: User talk:Sugeesh


text: User talk:Leek248

title: User talk:Leek248


text: User talk:Limerickborn

title: User talk:Limerickborn


text: User talk:MR XtremeX

title: User talk:MR XtremeX


text: User talk:Ohjens

title: User talk:Ohjens


text: User talk:Brandon5485

title: User talk:Brandon5485


text: User talk:Thetelaishow

title: User talk:Thetelaishow


text: User talk:Jackgrimes

title: User talk:Jackgrimes


text: User talk:Inik

title: User talk:Inik


text: User talk:Klajerome

title: User talk:Klajerome


text: User talk:Godbog

title: User talk:Godbog


text: User talk:Korsal

title: User talk:Korsal


text: User talk:Kshishkin

title: User talk:Kshishkin


text: User talk:Ana sobral

title: User talk:Ana sobral


text: User talk:Asittingducktv

title: User talk:Asittingducktv


text: User talk:Ladorme

title: User talk:Ladorme


text: User talk:Jaquelindynha

title: User talk:Jaquelindynha


text: User talk:Equinox06

title: User talk:Equinox06


text: User talk:Artefactme

title: User talk:Artefactme


text: User talk:Marcialmot

title: User talk:Marcialmot


text: User talk:Ajaxpro

title: User talk:Ajaxpro


text: User talk:NativeFaith

title: User talk:NativeFaith


text: User talk:Erickologikhoo

title: User talk:Erickologikhoo


text: User talk:Maddog11111

title: User talk:Maddog11111


text: User talk:Alexandra villalobos

title: User talk:Alexandra villalobos


text:
User talk:PiRSquared17

Recent vandalism at User_talk:BarkingFish
Hi. I'm aware that you have recently reverted and removed vandalism from my talk page here. Would you please be kind enough to email me the content of what was posted? Regardless of whether it was vandalism or not, I generally like to read what others have posted for me, so I can decide how to respond. Thank you :) BarkingFish (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't access it. It was deleted or oversighted. I think it was just some long-term vandal like user:Dantherocker1. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This. My recollection is about 30 users got it.  Bad user name from Dan and a cat picture. --LauraHale (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you...
... for sharing the tech updates on English Wikinews. :) They are very helpful to have access to on our water cooler.  Much appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 07:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! I'll try to deliver all the things that go to the other English projects, but I don't intend to do user-talk deliveries. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:PiRSquared17


text: User talk:Dupont1999

title: User talk:Dupont1999


text: User talk:Adityaraj gadhavi

title: User talk:Adityaraj gadhavi


text: User talk:Daguindeau

title: User talk:Daguindeau


text: User talk:Infopediaonlinehere

title: User talk:Infopediaonlinehere


text: User talk:Shalom9188

title: User talk:Shalom9188


text: User talk:Bubble-os

title: User talk:Bubble-os


text: User talk:Ioda006

title: User talk:Ioda006


text: User talk:Prazan

title: User talk:Prazan


text: User talk:Asianpop

title: User talk:Asianpop


text:
Leader of Somali group al-Shabaab assassinated

March 21, 2010 According to reports, a senior commander for the Somali Islamist group al-Shabaab, Sheikh Daud Ali Hasan, was shot dead on Friday night in Kismayo.

The incident happened as Hasan was leaving a mosque in the city, when gunmen, whose identities are not known, approached and shot him in the head and chest, killing him. Hasan was in control of al-Shabaab's operations in Dhobley, near the Kenyan border.

Abdi Hasan Ise, who was a witness to the shooting, commented about the incident. "I heard gunshots and saw two men running; we rushed to the scene and there was a body lying there in a pool of blood," he said, as quoted by Agence France-Presse.

Another witness, Ahmed Daoud, said that "[a]t least three masked men armed with pistols shot Sheikh Daud Ali Hasan several times in the head and the chest as he was coming out of a mosque in Kismayo," as quoted by the BBC.

There are several rival groups in the area, but none of them have yet indicated whether they were responsible for the attack.

Sheikh Abukar Ali Adan, who is al-Shabaab's chairman in the vicinity, commented that the gunmen might have been apprehended, saying to a news conference that "[w]e have already arrested several suspects and we should bring them to the justice soon."


text:
User talk:Kayau

 * I didn't make any edits. Maybe you saw me on the account creation log. BTW why is this welcome not signed? welcomes are signed in both 'books and 'pedia. Kayau (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a bot that automatically welcomes all new users. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Your article, Hong Kong by-elections start today
I saw your recent article and quickly looked over it. It needs to be slightly longer. If you are unable to locate any information relevant to the story itself, perhaps a sentence or two of background information could be added to the article to pad it out.

Also, when you finish writing a story please place the review tag at the top of the article page to draw the attention of a peer reviewer. This will ensure that your article is factchecked, copyedited, copychecked, and, hopefully, published. If you don't place a "review" tag on your submission sometimes the article will get lost, and no one will notice your story's existence after it has gone stale (IE, is too old to be published).

All that aside, welcome to Wikinews:). I hope your first attempt at an article here is successful. Gopher65talk 03:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for reviewer status
Per your request, I have closed the discussion as "Candidate withdrew". I suggest that you read up on our policies which are often quite different from Wikipedia, study the style guide thoroughly and write a few more articles that address the issues raised and come back and apply again. Regards --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

TranslateWiki request
I have granted you Translator rights on TranslateWiki. Good luck with your new job ;-) Cheers. --Diego Grez return fire 02:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Interesting that you posted a message here btw. You know, I am more active on books and pedia. (OK I'm on a pedia break, but I'm still active on books.) Kayau (talk · contribs)

Certificate of participation

 * Awesome! Thanks! Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

replied
To your msg at my enwiki page, in case you didn't see. And to the refdesk question– but I'm not sure how much help I was. May I ask what you're doing with the translations on the talk? Is it as "evidence" or something? Sonia (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, about that, please see Talk:Hong Kong Democratic Party stirs up universal suffrage reform package controversy, as well as the archives of the assistance water cooler and Brian McNeil's user talk. Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unable to publish your article.
Hi Kayau. I'm leaving you this message as a courtesy, to inform you that I have reviewed Hong_Kong_'tutor_king'_applies_for_bankruptcy and I am presently unable to publish it. The reason for this is that I need to be able to review all the sources, and since two are in Cantonese, I'm not able to do this. This isn't to say the article isn't fit to publish, merely that I can't confirm all the information. If you can find a second source in English, please leave a message here (since I'll be watching the page) or at my talk page here. Thanks for your contribution, I look forward to re-reviewing it when you've updated it. BarkingFish (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

In-fighting in Indian National Congress ahead of Tamilnadu elections
Hi. Thanks for your review. I now added source for Jayanti standing in Mylapore Constituency. Can you please check and publish. Thanks in advance and your help and support. I am the main contributor for tamilnadu election page in wikipedia .now trying to contribute here Rajkumarth (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, would love to check & publish but I can't (see below). The c/e was nothing. ;-) Kayau (talk · contribs) 03:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks ... any idea what is turn around for reviews ... bit disappointed because i see only few pending for review and no progress ...u know anyone who reviews Rajkumarth (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the cooler. User:tempodivalse seems to be online; maybe you could ask him. Kayau (talk · contribs) 03:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hi, I've seen your activity level here has decreased over the last time. I also saw you created many great articles that demonstrate to me you know the website's policies and guidelines regarding content, and all that jazz. Would you like me to nominate you for the right? I'm sure you'd do well :) Diego Grez return fire 18:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd like to accept, but I'm not confident about my own article-writing abilities yet. I plan to write an article soon, perhaps later today, to assess my language proficiency. Also, if I do become a reviewer I'll do little more than a few tweaks here and there and a couple rollbacks. I'll let you know if I'm interested later. Kayau (talk · contribs) 02:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okie dokie. Diego Grez return fire 03:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Admin
Your request at WN:RFP was a success, and I've given you admin rights. Congrats! Of course, help and advice is always on hand as you get used to the tools. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for support everyone, as well as the comments on AGF. I'll try not to let you down. :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you've also become a reviewer, for that you should take a look at Reviewer message and (shameless plug) WN:Tips on reviewing articles.

 * Congratulations! --Pi zero (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, that's a fair point - would you mind going through a confirmation on WN:FR/RFP since it was originally only an adminship request? I ask because you never actually confirmed you wanted reviewer, and most people only voted for admin. A quick confirm would clear that up. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Seconded, Blood Red Sandman. Since each area of RfP only deals with one specific right, clumping them together by giving rights not requested kinda circumvents process.  I'd appreciate the WN:FR/RFP purely to confirm that people had no objections to the additional authorised rights. BarkingFish (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 * ✅, and thanks for the congrats and links! :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer Promotion
I has promoted you to the Reviewer class, entrusting you with the ability to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Please take a moment to read: You are welcome to use User Wikinews reviewer.
 * Flagged revisions
 * Reviewing articles
 * Peer review
 * Review
 * Reviewed article version
 * Flagged Revisions extension information, on MediaWiki

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews!

— Mike moral  ♪♫  00:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Right, and this is where I make my shameless plug for WN:Tips on reviewing articles :-).

 * And congratulations again. --Pi zero (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

 * Thanks. :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Abandoned
Hey there! Just a quick note to say that using works better than abandoned, as it will automagically add the date (to make it easier for administration later). Regards, — μ 09:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

New South Wales Premier criticised over government structure - thanks for writing!
% Gryllida talk 00:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's nothing but a couple link fixes. :) But you're welcome anyway. :D Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I am soliciting your input please!
I am attempting a Dispute resolution at Dispute resolution/Brian McNeil and Mattisse and I am soliciting your input as to the problem. I urge you to give feedback. Soliciting input is the next step in the Dispute resolution process. Please do! I can't participate in the project until this is resolved. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

privs
'''Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.'''
 * Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use.

 * Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

--Pi zero (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi Pi zero. I'm back. I won't really be very active any more, though. Kayau (talk · contribs) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 * Hi Kayau. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Trailer collides into bus; 10 dead, multiple injured
The two sources are not independent of each other, so nothing based on them is really going to be truly free of copyvio no matter how differently it's phrased. The article would need multiple independent sources first. --Pi zero (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I know; I did suggest that xe use a Tagalog article and use information from there (since there appears to be no other English source available). If it is on the verge of going stale, I can use a Chinese source as well. Kayau (talk · contribs)
 * Dates on sources wouldn't necessarily protect from staleness, of course; it's when the information came to light that matters. --Pi zero (talk)
 * What I meant was, if the author is unable to find a second source before time runs out, I can use a Chinese source as a second source. Kayau (talk · contribs) 22:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Kayau/Human heads seized at Chicago airport to be cremated
Why do you want to hang on to this article? We don't usually save synthesis to userspace — in fact, without very clear limits (hence my question) it'd be a very bad precedent to set; we can't allow ourselves to become an archive of failed articles. --Pi zero (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not really the first time I've had a failed article userfied. In fact, it's the fourth, though it's the first time I've done it myself. Keeping my failed articles is (for me at least) a great way to remember my past mistakes. This one, in particular, highlights what WN stuff I've forgotten during me wikibreak and I plan to refer back to it again before sending articles for review in the future. If you think it is inappropriate to store it here, I'd appreciate if you warned me before deleting them to let me save it in my hard drive. Thanks Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kayau


text: User talk:Sean2013

title: User talk:Sean2013


text: User talk:Generous

title: User talk:Generous


text: Talk:Leader of Somali group al-Shabaab assassinated


text: Comments:Leader of Somali group al-Shabaab assassinated


text: User talk:Mv dara dvm

title: User talk:Mv dara dvm


text: User talk:Prabhatkumargautam

title: User talk:Prabhatkumargautam


text:
Icelandic volcanic eruption prompts evacuation, flight diversions

March 21, 2010

A volcanic eruption started yesterday in south Iceland at or near the Eyjafjallajökull glacier. The first signs of the eruption were seen between 23:00 and midnight GMT. It is still not clear where the exact location of the eruption is but it appears to be on Fimmvörðuháls. People living in the area are being evacuated. Police have closed the roads into the area and a state of emergency has been declared. The eruption is expected to result in flooding if it is under the glacier, but fortunately it appears to between Eyjafjallajökull and another glacier, Mýrdalsjökull, reducing the danger of flooding. It is reported that the eruption can be seen as far away as from Vestmannaeyjar. So far the lava flow is viscous and thick.

There is also a danger that this eruption could trigger another eruption on nearby Mt. Katla, which is an off-rift volcano beneath Mýrdalsjökull. In the past, eruptions at Eyjafjallajökull have triggered eruptions at Mt. Katla. If Katla does erupt, the effect would be far more significant than that of the current eruption, as lava could melt the ice at the top of the mountain, causing the potential for massive flooding.

The air carrier Icelandair has diverted flights which were destined for Iceland as a precaution, due to the risks to aircraft of flying into volcanic ash. A notice to airlines prohibits flights within 120 nautical miles of the volcano.

Iceland is a volcanic island situated atop the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the juncture of the North American and Eurasian tectonic plates.


text:
Talk:Icelandic volcanic eruption prompts evacuation, flight diversions

Title
I'm not very keen on the title of this article. Shouldn't it be something like "Volcano erupts in Iceland"? -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 09:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only that but it also seem a little too general. Iceland is a very volcanically active place, what if it happens again? Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 16:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't nice to do so, but this should have failed review based on the title. I'll see what the alternatives are. :( --Brian McNeil / talk 17:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Why no link to the Icelandic page which has more recent details & links to webcams of the eruption in progress? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.225.23 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia link
editprotected

Please add the link to the Wikipedia article about the eruption.

70.29.208.247 (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Already archived.

Commons
editprotected

Please add

70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Already archived.

Category
editprotected

Please add

Category:Eyjafjöll 2010 eruption

70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC) ✅. In future please keep the editrequests together in one section.


text: Comments:British Airways cabin crew begins strike


text: User talk:Theatreseat

title: User talk:Theatreseat


text:
Thread:Comments:Teen arrested in Wal-Mart racial case/YAY

Political Correctness.--KDP3 (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:MangaWasabi

title: User talk:MangaWasabi


text: User talk:Medatallah

title: User talk:Medatallah


text: User talk:Giovanniusumakinaruto2204

title: User talk:Giovanniusumakinaruto2204


text: User talk:Karel Locke

title: User talk:Karel Locke


text:
User:Kayau

Hi. Please read my userpage on Wikipedia. I am most active on en pedia but sometimes I edit zh pedia and en books too. You can find my articles at Category:Kayau (Wikinewsie), or down here.

Nowadays, I no longer actively participate in WN, so WB or WP might be a better bet if you want to reach me. I still read and c/e articles for review, though. There hasn't been a lot of exciting news in my area lately. HK has settled down from the accusations of illegal structures, high-profile corruption cases, and even alleged dealings between politicians and gangsters last year. Now the government have scrapped national education and aren't going to change their plans to destroy the seahorse habitat, so there really isn't anything to write about.

Articles
There's no 'order' in which they're listed.

Mostly written by me

 * Facebook unblocked in Bangladesh
 * Hong Kong Democratic Party stirs up universal suffrage reform package controversy
 * Hong Kong's only railway company modifies regulations
 * Obama 'angry' with Afghanistan general Stanley McChrystal
 * Scholastic sued for Harry Potter copyright infringement
 * Hong Kong 'tutor king' applies for bankruptcy

Major copy-edit by other users

 * Hong Kong by-elections start
 * Hong Kong chief executive invites opponent to television debate
 * Men isolated to mimic Mars flight
 * Uproar over light sentence of Hong Kong judge's niece

Almost fully rewritten

 * Hong Kong teenager murders mother and sister
 * San Francisco hit-and-run suspect caught after lying
 * 'Statues of Democracy' removed in Hong Kong

Expanded/rewritten by me

 * Guatemalan president and first lady apply for divorce

note archive
Note: My 'interest' is shifting to studying right now, but I'll still read help around here and there, Wikinews being the most neutral (albeit least comprehensive) news source I know. :)

title: User:Kayau


text:
Thread:Comments:Teen arrested in Wal-Mart racial case/YAY/reply

...oh, go away.


text: User talk:Rjz1964

title: User talk:Rjz1964


text:
User talk:92.25.28.223

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews? If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Mike moral  ♪♫  02:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:92.25.28.223


text: User talk:Cpena500

title: User talk:Cpena500


text:
Thread:Comments:Teen arrested in Wal-Mart racial case/YAY/reply (2)

Why?--KDP3 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Aaadaa

title: User talk:Aaadaa


text: User talk:Komatan55

title: User talk:Komatan55


text: User talk:Nabzsta

title: User talk:Nabzsta


text: User talk:Paulo Roberto1981

title: User talk:Paulo Roberto1981


text:
User talk:Edward Vielmetti

 * Please only add sources to an article if the source is actually used in the article. Adding unused sources to the sources section is not helpful, and actually makes it more difficult for reviewers. Remember the source section is a "This is where i got the information that i used to write the article" not a "This is where there is an article on a similar subject" section. Cheers. And welcome to wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Edward Vielmetti


text: User talk:PROMOTORDESALUD

title: User talk:PROMOTORDESALUD


text: User talk:Mazraara

title: User talk:Mazraara


text: User talk:Sevion band

title: User talk:Sevion band