text:
Wikinews talk:Article flags

So... with the categories in the review template which appears on the article talk pages.. should we only comment in those categories if we think there is a problem, or should we give a 'yes' vote? - Borofkin 03:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Not sure yet. At the moment I'd say, give a yes vote.--Eloquence 12:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If a fact changes after publication, should the fact in question be rephrased to reflect this, or is it understood the the facts are acurate at the date of publishing? And on a similar line, what is to keep vandels from published articles? (please say something other than the standard wiki answer.) --Astronouth7303 02:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * To answer your first question, change the fact, and add on the article an Update: Changed by Lyellin 03:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC): "changes made". Lyellin 03:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lack of Review
Since we're still in a very early stage, should we allow articles that were put up for review, but never actually reviewed, to be re-reviewed? People have a tendency to review what they think is interesting, so I'd imagine there are probably going to be some ignored articles till we get enough people on board. --Xanadu 21:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, I think that the review process should not be limited in time, similar to the Featured Article Candidate process on Wikipedia.--Eloquence

 * I am confused. The current guideline is that if there is no objection raised after certain length of time (such as 8 hours) from the beginning of the review, the article is deemed as "passed the review process."
 * If not, and there needs certain number of affirmative voices to pass the review process, then, I agree Xanadu that there should be "re-review" process or long review process until enough affirmation is gathered. Tomos 00:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What review process? and other thoughts.
Some people here seems to have forgotten that this is Wiki*news*. If articles must pass serious peer-review scrutiny to be published on the front page, then it won't be news anymore. The Wikipedia articles on the French revolution are excellent, having been extended and adapted over years. The Wikinews articles on what happens in Ukraine will probably be as good in a couple of years too. ;-)

The fear is obviously that people will come with POV or incorrect claims. This is quickly fixed in other Wikimedias by somebody changing it. If opinions differs, it gets labeled as controversial. I do not see any reason why the same basic principles could not work here.

Worst case scenario: somebody claims to be an eyewitness but actually made everything up. How can we prevent that? Only by having other eyewittnesses. A review process does not help at all.

One of the best principles in life, and something that permeats wikimedia, is "do not fix a problem that doesn't exist". You are trying to implement a review process to handle your fears about what may happen. But collaborative news is something completely new, with a strong potential to be quite revolutionary, maybe even more so than wikipedia itself. Don't strangle it before it has born by pretending that you know what will happen. Let it free, and let it grow, and help it through the troublesome adolescence. Scrap the whole review process, and implement one if problems arises, tailored for the problems that do arise. --Regebro 01:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The mainstream press has to struggle with the problem of accuracy too. Since Wikinews will let articles live a very long time inaccuracies in the original story can always be corrected, which in turn makes the article news again. If an article is absurd or completely fabricated, in few cases will it survive very long(the possible exception on the other side being if a witness or insider decides to leak their story directly onto Wikinews)169.233.6.98 02:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I understand that when breaking news occurs, let's say an assassination, that it is crucial to get the story up on the main page for the masses to know. However, we do have to archive for future reference, and that's what I meant. Inaccuracies are a part of news, it's sometimes impossible to get the full story and sometimes one gets incorrect reports. However, as Wikinews expands, we're going to face more trolls who may post lies as news, and that's what we need to worry about the most and we need to devise some sort of review process for that. --Xanadu 16:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, in the future we may ecnounter problems and then we should solve them, when we know what those problems are. Any solution to a problem will have side effects. Solving problems that do not exist has only side effects and no benefits. --Regebro 10:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Idea: "For eyewittnesses you could make a banner like: This is an eyewittnes report. We can´t assure correctness yet." Remove the banner when you´ve got new info sources. --MilesTeg 02:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Good idea! --Regebro 08:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

archival stage -> snapshots
I would like to see an archive version come out as the direct outcome of the review stage, rather than 7 days later. This I suppose seems a bit risky given that review can end after 8 hours at present if no objections are raised. But to me it is risky to leave an approved article editable for 7 days and then automatically freeze it blindly.

I would propose to make archive a bit more flexible in response to this risk factor. I would see archives as like software relase versions, where there is a freeze and release of a given state, then work may continue on a development copy, with public users being directed in the first instance to the frozen public copy, and a link being provided to the editable version.

Once this subsequent editable version has passed its own review stage, then it may replace the public frozen version. Or if the story has changed very substantially, it may be given a different name (perhaps just adding a date to the old name, or perhaps completely changing the name/headline) and then released, so that as history unrolls, we have a number of release snapshots publicly available, plus still the editable (also public, but not *as* public) versions.

If we don't do this, we risk becoming an even more fluid news publisher than the existing news sites that remove their content. I am pestered by dreams of 1984.

I admit I haven't had time to fully read up on the current process, but it seems to be evolving anyway, so by the time I do I may be out of date already. How does my suggestion sound, or should I go back and read something else, if so, what?

This is not the same thing as the already existing history feature of the wiki. The history page contains as well as some 'good' versions, a great many 'bad' versions, and very few clues to show which are which. And first time users are not going to know to look there at all.

I also suggest a deadline for first review of an article, to encourage users to avoid adding endlessly to a story delaying its release. With this "feature freeze then publish, and iterate" process, users have more assurance that the things they want to add can be added later, meaning we can concentrate on short, punchy stories attacking the core points of relevence in the first release version, to get stories out more quickly.

Simeon 15:55, 6 Dec 2004

 * The idea of versioning& release sounds quite good to me.
 * We may be able to simply have a link to a past stable/release version and say "the officially released version of this article is available here". Tomos 04:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Articles have edit histories, so... i'm not sure I understand what is actially being proposed. :) --Regebro 08:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

digital divide: concrete proposal for review stage
Only about 10% or so of us have access to the internet. The armies of the richest countries regularly massacre people in the poorest countries in order to retain control (mainly) of oil resources but also for other reasons of economic and political power, while claiming that this is to protect the people in the poor countries from dictators.

Independently of the work required to make the above two sentences into a more careful NPOV version, IMHO it is NPOV to say that the digital divide is a serious weakness in wikinews. i don't see how anyone can deny it. Of course, wikinews will be better than any of the commercial media, which mostly just present government/corporate viewpoints, but we could potentially be much better rather than just slightly better, but only if we are consistent with our aims.

The commercial media present the present situation (since beginning of 2004) in Haiti as a situation in which mainly USA and French military forces are helping solve a violent conflict between an authoritarian, not-quite-fairly elected president and rebels. Independently of whether this is NPOV or in fact extremely POV in such a way that it encourages the systematic killing of members of the majority political party in Haiti, IMHO we should be able to have consensus that any articles on Haiti would be much better reviewed if:

 * not only do we have three independent people making comments and coming to consensus, but also:

 * we make a reasonable attempt, e.g. via googling for local web pages, googling for mailing lists and attempting to email locals if necessary, to try to get the perceptions of facts (which, what, when, where, how, why, who) of at least three people representing different groups (political, social, religious, sex, wealth, etc) in the geographical place where the event happened and invite them to participate in the review

This is, of course, relevant to any place in the world. A report on an event in Paris, Texas, should ideally have comments from at least three people, in some way independent from one another, who live in Paris, Texas.

 * Maybe having something on each language site like en:Wikinews:Urgent Search for a Local Reviewer in Edinburgh, en:Wikinews:Urgent Search for a Local Reviewer in Bangalore,fr:Wikinews:Recherche urgente pour rapporteur local au Congo-Kinshasa, might be useful, where someone local puts the page on his/her watch this page list? i don't know, i'm just throwing around ideas here.

 * In places where a local, autonomous indymedia collective exists, contacting that local group should, in principle, be a good way to get a report on facts independent of government, corporations and political parties. This covers (as of Dec 2004) most of America (North+South), Europe, Oceania, a small number of places with mostly big populations in Asia, and a small number of places with mostly small populations in Africa. This means many places where there are no indymedia collectives, so it can be hard to judge the relationship between web sites, mailing lists there and ordinary people. Nevertheless, the lack of an indymedia group is a bad reason not to search for local information if we are trying to make wikinews neutral. Boud 03:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Interesting idea. This leads to me to think about one question -
 * One of the important parts of the neutrality policy says that minor views should be presented as minor views. How could we judge if a view presented by a local or an indymedia journalist is major, minor, or something in between? I don't know. I think this is something we should address, though.
 * The first thing is the local population, check wikipedia entries for population numbers: e.g. compare the population of the city of Bhopal with the number of employees of Union Carbide - having a single opinion from a Bhopal resident probably represents 20 or so times (i have not checked this number, but i'm sure it's much bigger than 1, please don't copy it without checking) the population of the Union Carbide (ex-?)company.
 * In that case, it is already clear that the official company point of view is that of a tiny minority of the people directly affected by the situation (both Bhopal residents and Union Carbide employees).
 * Get to know demographics around the world: most of the basic info on the wikipedia will be close to correct, even if it's originally from the CIA factbook...
 * Do US/UK/France government spokespeople really represent the majority of residents in their countries? Even if yes, the populations of these three countries constitute only about 10% of the world's population. Ask yourself how much of the information in the news item comes from e.g. Indian, Chinese, Brazilian, Nigerian sources (even government sources there at least represent local opinion to some extent).
 * The question of minority vs majority among the locals is more difficult. There's definitely a danger that the locals who have the best internet access and write static (non-wiki) web pages justify a local dictatorial regime and that some POV's from non-locals are more accurate than by those locals whose information wikipedists will be able to obtain. IMHO it is still better to obtain this point of view, even if it's from a minority (locally) in a population which itself is a majority in terms of the news item, but of course it is best to do better than this if possible.
 * In the case of indymedia, there is a publicly archived mailing list showing the process of how a local group was accepted as part of the indymedia network: http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc and you can check the indymedia organising wiki for new IMCs (indymedia centres): http://docs.indymedia.org/view/Global/NewImc Of course, the process is not perfect, but the whole aim is to provide firsthand reporting by a variety of local individuals and groups sharing only minimal socio-political principles (typically: opposition to racism, sexism, ...) and most (but not all) local groups have publicly archived mailing lists, but in their local language. You need to build up your personal trust factors regarding individual indymedia collectives and the general indymedia process like any trust factor. Similarly for other local sources: e.g. keep a local file of URLs to what seem to be credible sources.  Boud 12:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, why is the section titled digital divide? Not that I cannot see this as a part of the divide, but I thought you were talking about the digital divide in terms of computer& internet access availabilities earlier..

Tomos 04:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * i'm not sure if i understand the question. The digital divide is not sharp, it is not just between people with 100% access and those with 0% access, it also exists among the people who do have internet access: among the 600 million or so (probably more by now) of us who have internet access, a big fraction cannot touch type, only go occasionally to an internet cafe, do not (yet ;) know what a wiki is, etc., but many do have some way of producing content representing their perception of news events on www pages or in mailing lists. But because they are small in numbers in their internet presence, a conscious effort is required to include their information in wikinews. So a relatively easy step (from the comfort of your usual internet access point) is to maximise communication within the sort-of internet population in order to (approximately) overcome the biases which can be estimated (e.g. as above: the population of Bhopal is many, many times greater than the population of Union Carbide).
 * In terms of the 90% (or so) without any internet access, the place to start discussing this seems to be Digital Divide, but it depends on how much energy and commitment we collectively have. In the meantime, my comment here is much more concrete and relatively easy, it's about overcoming the digital divide among those who more-or-less have internet access. Boud 12:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the answers. The ideal definition of digital divide is not a serious issue here, I think. But the representation of various viewpoints is. So I thought further, reading your answers.
 * I think it is relatively easy to refer to an opinion survey conducted using large random sample to represent certain society's or social group's opinion. But it is not easy to be confident that one person's statement is representative of a social group he belongs to. That is one problem. It could be very difficult to deal with, potentially. (But maybe that's partly because of my personal preference. I don't like those quotes from lay people in news reports. That's so unreliable piece of information to understand a social group.
 * My tentative proposal is to be conservative regarding bringing a new (original) perspective as "major" or "minor," but make factual observations such as "on discussion lists and other places on the web, such and such reception seems to be prevalent." Or "several locals contacted by our reporters indicated independently from each other that this and this view are widely-held among them." How does that sound?
 * When it comes to contacting local civic groups, I think we should be very cautious of their own agenda/bias/interest.
 * When thinking about which view to represent, population is one important, but not the only criterion, I think. For one thing, our reporting on things like human rights issues would be very different if NPOV meant to represent views of all the people who ever lived. Somehow, we limit "whose views are relevant." How? I don't know precisely. Here are some thoughts.

 * Some news stories are written to indicate what could happen in the near future. Opinions of powerful political leaders, corporate exectives, influential experts, etc, have more news values because of potential influence they have on the course of the reported event. Is this a reasonably legitimate interest for news readers? I would say yes. But that means to think certain views are more relevant than others in relation to that interest. Views of the powerless is not as relevant or newsworthy, possibly.
 * Another thing that could possibly matter is justice. On political issues, views of various stakeholders and involved parties are more important than views of outsiders, for example. That's partly because readers want to know if a particular political event is just.
 * Some news outlets are catered to investors. Others are targeted for the people who are more attractive to advertisers of household items. There is no reason Wikinews should be like that.
 * At the same time, I don't think that "accurate, proportionate representation of the world or views of various social groups" is not the only thing that matters. That is one important thing to take into consideration, because readers will know/learn how the world is from news stories. But other things like how just an event is, and what the future possibilities of an ongoing event could be like, are something Wikinews community would want to take into account.
 * Well, does that make sense? It is hard to discuss these general matters without having concrete examples.. But my idea basically is that getting additional information about how locals think about an event is perhaps good, but sometimes not very important. It probably depends on type of news. I hope I don't sound too reactionary, and it is not my intention to discourage you at all, but that's my tentative opinion. Tomos 10:39, 11 12月 2004 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion for review process
I have been thinking a bit, and I have now a complete alternatuve review process which I think will be much easier to use and allow for much smoother work here on Wikinews.

The article stages would be three and a half:

Development
When the author is still looking for more information, or the author feels things are lacking from the article, he/she makes notes of what is missing on the talk page, and add the template:development to the page.

Publication
If the author or somebody else feels the article is ready for publication, the template:development is removed fom the article.

Dispute
If somebody has objections to the article, these are noted on the talk page, and a template used to raise objections are added to the page, such as template:NPOV, template:Disputed or maybe a template:NotNews and any other templates we find we need.

The talkpage is used to try to resolve the dispute. If the dispute is resolved, the dispute-template gets removed.

Deleted
If the dispute can not be solved, or article was deemed to be unsalvageable or not news, it gets deleted.

So, how does that sound? This means that we can get rid of all this articles hanging in review limbo. --Regebro 16:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This is basically what I outlined in the Alternative Review Process Proposal: publication at author's discretion after development, and objections are noted via templates. I have been looking at the workings of the current review process and once again think that an implicit approval of all articles until disputed for some reason is the only way we can guarantee that pages don't remain in the middle of some process with nobody to mind its status. -- IlyaHaykinson 19:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, it's pretty much the same. +1 for that. --Regebro 20:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Makes very good sense, and closer to how things work on wikinews, I think. The sequence of Publication > Objection > Deletion makes a good sense, in particular.
 * But I still think it is better to have some review process. One idea is x number of people explicitly approving the contents neutrality, accuracy, legality, etc. before an article can be published. Another is something like wikipedia's featured article selection. We can flag certain articles as "reviewed," and making it an option, not prerequisit, for a published article. I don't necessarily see one or the other superior at this point, but having some information about how much checking went into the production of a page is quite important.
 * In general, I think your idea is quite close to how Wikipedia works. It is very much possible, though, that Wikinews will become something quite different from Wikipedia. Right now, I think many active Wikinews crews are also Wikipedians, and bring general conceptions of how to do things on wiki. Review is one of the things that Wikipedia does not do formally. Is formal review against wiki in general? I don't know, but perhaps not. So, I think we should be open to experimenting what we haven't tried seriously on Wikipedia. Tomos 09:42, 11 12月 2004 (UTC)

I think we need dispute tags, but I also think we need an effective accelerated process for flagging articles which have been fact-checked and are considered good by the community in their current state. In general, we should embrace the principle of giving the reader as much information as possible about the community view of an article. Note that the current review process is already optional, so aside from the addition of dispute tags, you do not suggest something radically different from what we already have. We just need to make the process more streamlined and easier to understand.--Eloquence 03:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * How about a template, at the bottom of the main article, saying "This article has been reviewed by the following Wikinews visitors: <list of people who've looked at the article>", and encourage anyone who approves of an article to add their name (or remove it later if the article changes to not be good anymore). Having a list of people who vouch for an article is probably good feedback, and isn't quite a nebulous flag like "reviewed". -- IlyaHaykinson 08:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm, interesting idea. I do think that we should try very hard to avoid a faction-like situation where some articles are approved by one group but opposed by another and vice versa -- that might lead away from NPOV. So in that scheme, I would want the tag to be replaced with something else if there are objections to the article.--Eloquence 08:22, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * We could have "List of users approving: [list] / List of users disapproving: [list]" — or is that exactly what you wanted to avoid? Part of the problem is that articles can (and should, in my opinion) change over some time, and approval (or disapproval) of one version might not be the approval (or disapproval) of a later version. Nevertheless perhaps we can try such an approval-list template on a few articles and see how it goes?
 * My general problem with the current process is that it encourages a slow review process that, honesly, doesn't result in totally high quality news articles. We now have several dozen active users, and only 150 news articles, and yet a good precentage of the pages are so-so quality in terms of comprehensiveness and/or NPOV issues. If we reword the suggested policy to only put pages under explicit review that appear to need attention (like the tag on en:Wikipedia, for example), we might get away with the same level of quality but less articles in limbo. And a list of explicit approval and disapproval will make it easy to count up support and gauge general feeling about an article's state. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:07, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removal of notnews flag
Please see discussion and. Noone thinks it's good the way it is and some want it completely removed. People who think something like it is needed should develop a new one while considering the views of those who have been discussing it. Neutralizer 13:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I came to put it back but Chic already did it. Neutralizer 01:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Replacing with finished tag
I replaced the tag with the  tag. The Notready tag says: ''Please edit it. If consensus is reached, change the tag to , and remove this template. If not, remove this template. The finished tag says: This article has been marked as finished by an editor. Please look over this article to ensure that it complies with all policies and guidelines. Once you've approved the article, replace this tag with. If you disagree with the use of this tag, replace it with .'' The finished tag -for obvious reasons- makes more sense to me. F e  llow  Wiki  News   (W)  21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

title: Wikinews talk:Article flags


text:
User:Gerrit/monobook.css

a {text-decoration: none} a:hover {text-decoration: underline}

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

title: User:Gerrit/monobook.css


text:
User:Gerrit

I haven't done much yet.

My user page on the English language Wikipedia

title: User:Gerrit


text:
Talk:Hearing begins over David Hookes death

Some suggestions: When Hookes died? Tell more about the incident.--carlosar Nov 15 12:09:21 UTC 2004

You need changing the article title. It is exactly the same as in ABC--carlosar Nov 15 16:46:31 UTC 2004

It is technically accurate, though a bit brief. For Australians who know the story it is informative as is, but for someone with no knowledge it would be completely baffling.microbe

It is ok
It is ok. Lets published it.--- Carlosar 02:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It is a one-liner, but it's really better than nothing, and it's just too old to be sitting in the review category.--Shana 15:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Dori

See w:sq:User:Dori

title: User:Dori


text:
User talk:Dori

Only at w:sq:User talk:Dori please

title: User talk:Dori


text:
Iran close to decision on nuclear program

November 13, 2004 Iranian representatives say negotiations with Europe on are in the final stages.

, Kamal Kharazi, told state television Saturday Iranian negotiators have given their final response to a European Union proposal to suspend Iran's enrichment program. He said it is now up to the Europeans to decide whether or not to accept their decision.

Iran and the European Union's big three powers — Britain, Germany, and France — have been negotiating a deal under which would agree to freeze sensitive nuclear work to avoid possible  sanctions.

U.S., says that Iran's nuclear program is intended to make. Iran authorities have insisted that their nuclear ambitions are limited to generating electricity from atomic energy plants, not making bombs.

Critics of the position of the United States point to Israel's nuclear program. Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, but is widely believed to possess at least 82 nuclear weapons. The program has not been condemned by the United States.


text:
Iran Agrees to Suspend Uranium Conversion

, head of the for Iran, announced Monday that the country would temporarily suspend conversion of  as of November 22. "Iran is planning to suspend uranium conversion activities from November 22," Rowhani said during a news conference.

Uranium is a chemical element which can be used in and. The process of conversion modifies the uranium oxydes into. The purpose of such a conversion process is usually an intermediate step in the production of. Uranium hexafluoride cannot itself be used in a nuclear weapon, but can be into weapons-grade uranium, or it can be converted into  in a. Iran has claimed to be using its nuclear program for only peaceful nuclear energy, rather than for nuclear weapons, but there are concerns in the European Union and the USA as to whether they are being truthful.


text:
User talk:Anthony DiPierro

Pages like Iran should probably be handled by the category system, although it does have the problem that it is not (yet) sortable by date, so I have no problem with keeping them for now. The deleted pages contained nothing but an interwiki link - this makes very little sense.--Eloquence

title: User talk:Anthony DiPierro


text:
User talk:BenM

Please bring this issue up on the pump (talk:main page, I guess) if you want to discuss it. Having links to Wikinews pages makes sense for organizational purposes. What links here doesn't work with interwiki links, for instance. Anthony DiPierro 14:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know how to make interwiki links. You seem to be ignoring what I'm saying. Interwiki links don't work with "what links here", and besides for certain topics we should have a page dedicated to news on that topic, not just link to Wikipedia. Anthony DiPierro 15:03, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please point me to the place where this was discussed and decided. I don't see it. Anthony DiPierro 15:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

context for the above

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

title: User talk:BenM


text:
Wikinews:Deletion log

05:02, 10 Dec 2004 Lyellin deleted "Podcasting, Tune In and Enjoy!" (deleting based on consensus on deletion requests)  12:37, 9 Dec 2004 Lankiveil deleted "The World gets dumber" (content was: '{{Deletionrequest}}Most of them thaught do be Americans...')  23:40, 7 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "Mayler" (content was: ' email: mayler (at) linuxmail.org')  04:05, 5 Dec 2004 Lyellin deleted "Sandbox mockup of Main Page" (content was: '{{delete}} by sole contributor, test page')  04:02, 5 Dec 2004 Lyellin deleted "Wikinews:Weekly" (content was: '{{delete}} by sole contributor, test page')  02:21, 5 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "Category:Orphan Articles" (creator agrees with deletion)  00:05, 5 Dec 2004 Lyellin deleted "Jeandré du Toit" (content was: 'Please delete this page - created by accident when trying to fix an unfriendly redirect.')  14:02, 4 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "11/" (content was: 'Wikinews Launched!')

08:57, 4 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "Stephen King Found dead in home" (nonsense)

22:49, 3 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "メインページ" (content was: 'test')

13:22, 3 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "Image:JuergenLogo.png" (uploads should go to the commons - were temporarily re-enabled accidentally)

08:25, 3 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "Record computer outage at UK government department" (deleting for privacy reasons, will restore top revision text shortly)

01:47, 3 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "Korea-Brazil-temporary" (content was: 'How do I delete a wrong page?')

01:17, 3 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "FIFA World Cup Germany 2006 Preliminaries Matches Results" (blanked article that never was?)

01:11, 3 Dec 2004 Eloquence deleted "Craig Bailey caught eating all the pies" (nonsense story)

03:25, 18 Nov 2004 Eloquence deleted "Brazilian delegation returns from Arafat funeral/Review" (content was: '{{delete}}')

03:25, 18 Nov 2004 Eloquence deleted "Talk:Talk:Brazilian delegation returns from Arafat funeral/Review" (content was: '{{delete}}')

21:21, 15 Nov 2004 Eloquence deleted "Brazilian soccer's mother has been kidnapped" (speedy delete - no links, title is incorrect grammar)

15:15, 15 Nov 2004 Eloquence deleted "Kamal Kharrazi" (content was: '[[:en:Kamal Kharrazi]]' => use interwiki links)

15:13, 15 Nov 2004 Eloquence deleted "Hassan Rohani" (content was: '[[:en:Hassan Rohani]]' => use interwiki links)

title: Wikinews:Deletion log


text:
User talk:Eloquence

Change Username Request
Hi, I have a change username request. Kgargar 02:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

'''I will respond to messages on this page. Please check your contributions list ("My contributions") for responses. If there is a response, your edit is no longer the "top" edit in the list.'''

 * Thanks. I'll wait for it. --Kgargar 03:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Unlike other users, I don't archive Talk pages manually since old revisions are automatically archived anyway. Direct archive links:

 * Comments from November 15, 2004 until January 18, 2006

Fire in Vladivostok
Hello. I create article "Everybody must know it! Fire accident in Vladivostok, Russia" Here is russian version: http://ru.wikinews.org/wiki/Крупный_пожар_в_офисном_здании_Владивостока

 * Thanks for your response. There is another story at Horrible fire accident in Vladivostok, Russia. I'm about to make dinner, but I'll look into merging the efforts and adding sources later.--Eloquence 23:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Al Qaeda bomb maker confirmed dead in U.S. airstrike in Pakistan
Thanks for your suggestion, but I had a couple of run-ins with one of the editors of this article before. Since he displayed strong feelings of ownership before and I have not been able to successfully communicate my concerns with him I decided to merely point out the factual problems this time. In the end it saves everybody time since the pattern has been that he reverts my changes anyway. I know it is not very constructive, but I ran out of ideas... --vonbergm 00:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I see. I guess the only thing I could recommend is to go through the steps in Dispute resolution -- but that's a time-intensive thing to do.--Eloquence 00:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Need help!
Please see my page, StrangerInParadise 14:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Syndicationfeed
Syndicationfeed is a custom special page. It produces RSS and Atom feeds. It is operational at Journowiki:Special:Syndicationfeed, but has not fully implemented the configuration variables. You can read more about it, and see a version (not up-to-date) of the source through Journowiki:Help:Syndicationfeed.

Facebook
I see no problem with implementing a facebook, so long as the images are freely licensed and uploaded at commons. (Unless you think we can stretch the Fair Use policy and consider personal images as Publicity photos?) -  Amgine | talk en.WN 16:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Re Userpage for Stranger
I've thought about doing so, and concur with your reasoning. My issue at the moment is that Wikinews have not engendered sufficient trust in me to encourage me to stay. I find regular and serious abuse of admin power here, particularly the use of blocking to prevail in an editorial dispute. Also, as I type these lines, Amgine is engaged in censoring a story I cowrote concerning NSW's new cannabis laws, claiming that all the background material was superfluous, but gov't spokesmen making claims was news not to be in any way disputed. Compare his and mine, and see our correspondance. Note that he announced his intent during a series of my edits, which he then explicitly overwrote. How long will he leave the   banner in place after he is done?

This is special,

 * A medical practitioner speaking for the government is a news event; wikinews rebutting that argument is not.
 * -Amgine

Note the rebuttal was not explicit, but the juxtaposition of well-sourced facts.

Amgine is senior here. The institutional problems I find here are Foundation-level issues, that is, the inmates appear to be running the asylum. I can appreciate the growing pains involved in adapting the Wiki ethos to a domain as immediate as journalism, and think the effort very worthwhile. Critical work remains.

StrangerInParadise 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

An update, I've made a compromise edit which hopefully addresses Amgine's concerns and preserves his better edits. In the interest of the story, I overcame the temptation to see just how long he'd leave the   flag after his last edit, cutting it off at about one hour twenty.

StrangerInParadise 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Note MrM's reversions. StrangerInParadise 21:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: 4 days
Stranger is still a "new" account, which is covered in BP at admin's discretion. Also, being that this is the user's second 3RR violation in the past week, I do not feel that the advised time was enough. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh well, given that it's the second violation, I won't complain. Perhaps we should codify a steady increase of blocking time for repeated 3RR violations somewhere.--Eloquence 22:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

TOC issue
I have no strong feelings about it either way, but isn't this a general style issue? StrangerInParadise 06:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I guess it is; a recommendation could be added to Style guide. I would suggest that a TOC is used only for in-depth reports of 30K or more. Generally, I prefer it if Wikinews doesn't look too much like Wikipedia, as that might discourage people from using it like Wikipedia.--Eloquence

You want to avoid resembling one of the most popular websites on the planet? =)  StrangerInParadise 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I want us to become one of the most popular websites on the planet. ;)--Eloquence 10:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3RR Proposal
Please see Water cooler/policy, et sequiem. This community has a fundemental decision to make as to whether it shall be governed by the guidance of rules or the whims of personalities. Now is the time. StrangerInParadise 12:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have called for a vote on the 3RR Proposal. StrangerInParadise 05:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Discussions
Let me know what you think of Template:Discussions. Nyarlathotep 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The chinese wikinews site is ready to be launched
The chinese wikinews site is ready to be launched. there is a new vote after a long discussion among the wikipedians on chinse wikipedia community. the vote page on meta is:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikinews/Vote/Zh

the project has been supported by over 30 people in the past week. according to the policy, after one week of voting, there is more than 90% of overall agreement, it can be launched immediately.

so please help us to lauched the project. thank you!

any questions about the detail of this vote, please talk to me.

--Vipuser 10:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bot help
As has been evident over the past week or so, Uncle G's new day bot is no more. In searching for bots that I might be able to cannibalise I came across one you'd done for auto-uploading in Perl. I can't find my Perl book and have probably only written 50 or so lines of the language, could you help with something to update Template:New page and create the day entries? (I've been doing those manually a month at a time). I can host on gein.vistech.net which has Perl 5.8.7 installed. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My bot is now doing the day entries, but it is very poorly suited for doing New page updates --Cspurrier 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be moot, I've run into problems getting the Perl HTML::Parser stuff installed. It uses long function names that are giving me a few problems.  Probably be fine if we could upgrade to the latest VMS version and compiler, I'd then also have the option to put in Python or PHP.  Of course, there's then issues about who we let use the modules. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

blocking policy.
reg. ur addition of "(see scenarios below)" to the "troublemakers" line in the blocking policy. does the "scenarios below" refer (solely) to the Disruption section? in which case wldn't it be better to reword the line to read Disrupt the normal functioning of wikinews. Doldrums 06:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * It is intended to be an inclusive reference that covers a large subset of the "scenarios" below. It should probably be reworded.--Eloquence 12:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

 * yes, i think it should be reworded. one possibility may be to move the troublemakers line to the lead paragraph of the blocking policy. 'coz, unlike other items in the list, this appears to me, to summarise the intent of the policy rather than describe specific behavior which warrants blocking. Doldrums 14:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's blocking policy is quite well developed and handles many issues we've faced. I vaguely remember it using "restatments of the sites mission" to resolve contentious wording, but I can't find that now, although its clearly an option here, i.e. replace trouble makers with "users impeding our delivery of the news". Oh, the rumor is that wikipedia deliberately does not allow blocking for personal attacks. Nyarlathotep 15:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Rfa
I seem to have a tie vote in my Rfa & support and 7 oppose and 1 abstain. I am wondering what is to be done next? Jason Safoutin 13:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * RfA is about consensus, so I'm afraid a split vote is not nearly enough for you to become an administrator -- sorry. Usually we go for 75-80% support as a minimum, though many nominations had no objections at all. I suggest trying again in 4-8 weeks.--Eloquence 13:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. But IMO, a tie is not a concensus either. Jason Safoutin 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * No, it's not. But you need consensus support, not consensus opposition, to become an admin. :-) --Eloquence 13:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand...there is no concensus on either end. Thats what a tie is. Jason Safoutin 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Let me rephrase: The fact that the entire community doesn't oppose you (which is what "consensus on the other end" would mean) doesn't mean that you become an administrator. If you had consensus opposition, you'd in fact be pretty close to being banned. Adminship is granted when there is community consensus to do so. Otherwise the status quo - no adminship - remains.--Eloquence 13:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An Rfa is for admin concensus. Not a Rfb (Request For Banning). If I had thought that was the case, I woud not have accepted the nomination. I accepted to help, not to be banned. And that cmparrison IMO is not a fair one. I was simply asking for clarification not a rude answer. Jason Safoutin 13:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I did not mean to offend. My point is simply that there is no status between adminship and regular users, and adminship is only granted when pretty much everyone agrees. It's a consensus poll between two options (similar to a deletion request), not a majority vote, so there is no tie. Yours is a fairly typical outcome, in fact, for users who just need to go a little more to become admins. A contributor who receives only "Oppose" on RfA is the exception, and such a contributor would either be very new, or very unpopular.--Eloquence 14:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Rfda
This is a message to inform you that I have added every administrator to the Rfda section on WN:A. This is not personal and I feel as if the community, who did not have the option of voting for or against most of the administrators, should be able to choose who they want to be in charge. I also want to say that I value everyones work on this site and I know that everyone does their best. I hope that none of you will take this personally and I hope that all of us will continue to work together. Jason Safoutin 12:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're around and about
in about an hour or so... it might be nice to talk in IRC. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
Thanks for voting on my RfA. If I am granted Administratorship, you can be sure I will not misuse the faith you have in me. PVJ  (Talk) 06:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

my bureaucrat and sysop flags
Oscar has removed my bureaucrat and sysop flags by mistake. It appears he got mixed up by MrM's request on my talk page. I would very much appreciate if you could make me a bureaucrat again. --Cspurrier 02:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

 * It's been fixed. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Please review this Request for Administratorship.
I had nominated myself for Administratorship on the 24th of May. The current vote count is 13 supporting and 2 opposing. Please check iit and take any neseccary action. Thank you. PVJ  (Talk) 16:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pirate Party interview
My liege, pardon me for asking, but would you set my hair on fire, cut off my toes, and lock me in a cage with my enemies if I were to remove the "Avast ye scurvy file sharers!" part from "Avast ye scurvy file sharers!": Interview with Swedish Pirate Party leader Rickard Falkvinge? It just doesn't look right, plus it makes the article title longer than it should be. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 02:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * My liege? :-) I'm trying to emulate a title/subtitle structure. This is more magazine style than newspaper style, which I think is appropriate for interviews. My own preference would be that if you change it, you put something else before the colon. But do raise it on the talk page and see what others think.--Eloquence 04:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

commons - Image:Highgasprices.ogg & Image:Hazemalaysia.ogg
I think Image:Hazemalaysia.ogg is public domain by user:Leofan7. I think most of the audio produced on this site was pd at that time (this is before we adopted cc-by). I also think the same thing about Image:Highgasprices.ogg based on. Could you possibly undelete them? Thanks. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Done.--Eloquence 19:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 19:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also commons:image:Aussievolcano.ogg however this one is an anon, but still during pd period.

Bawolff ☺☻ 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As well, commons:Image:Bernard Ebbers.jpg was deleted, but its en wikipedia counterpart had source. — w:Image:Bernard Ebbers.jpg. Sorry to put so many requests here. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Travelling for a few days, will only be able to review these when I get back.--Eloquence 06:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats okay, no rush. Thanks for looking. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've undeleted the Ogg file. The other image is questionable - it being in a press release on a government website doesn't mean it is in the public domain. I'll leave it deleted for now, unless there is some clear evidence that it was indeed taken by a US federal government employee.--Eloquence 18:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, If thats the case, I'll upload it locally, as it could qualify as publicity (Hoping I got that right. All this fair use stuff makes my head spin). Thanks. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Where, how and who to ask new namespaces on fr
Hi, i'ld like to have new namespace on the french speaking wikinews :

 * 1) Page (or Portail is Page is not possible)
 * 2) Dossier

is it possible ? who could do what ?? thans

Jacques Divol 21:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

 * 1) Create an entry in Bugzilla.
 * 2) In that entry, briefly describe the namespaces and their purpose.
 * 3) Add a comment to the entry and point to a community discussion on fr.wikinews.org where it is clear that the community does not object to the idea.

 * If there aren't enough French community members to comment, you could post about the idea on wikinews-l and ask for feedback from the international Wikinews community instead.--Eloquence 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ok thanks for this speedy answer Jacques Divol

Wikinews at Wikimania
Hello. About your post at Village Pump of Portuguese Wikinews, we can't help you. Anyone of us can go at Wikimani, but Carlosar can edit the second page. Good luck at Boston, and sorry for the english. --Slade meta 03:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 * NP, but too bad none of you are coming ;-( --Eloquence 05:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikis and the news
Are there any transcripts or recordings available for this discussion? --+Deprifry+ 18:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

 * There should be a recording as both Dan and I were equipped with microphones. I'm not sure how useful it would be since the audience was talking without microphones, and it was an open discussion. I haven't seen anything posted yet, but if it will be, it should appear in the Wikimania 2006 archives.--Eloquence 22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. And good luck with your candidacy. --+Deprifry+ 09:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Invitation on Wikinews-de
There has been an invitation for a press conference after the establishment of the german pirate party, which will be held in Berlin. You are the only user who lives in Berlin an who is active sometimes. Perhaps you have time to go there. Regards --SonicR 12:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Possible. Remind me again in a week or so?--Eloquence 00:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay. It's on 10th of September and will take place in Berlin-Mitte (They will unveil the actual place soon). The press conference will start at about 14:00. More information can be found here. We can collect some questions at the wiki if you go there. Regards --SonicR 09:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

DV's video of Broadcast, Do you by anychance know the license
I was wondering if you by any chance knew the license of the video for the trailer of Broadcast. I would assume its PD as it was before we adopted the CC-BY. I also got this email from him on Jan 29, 2006 10:21 PM (after inquiring), and kept forgetting to ask you: Hi Bawolff,

Thanks for your interest in the video.

As far as I am concerned, please feel free to upload that video to anywhere you like. However, others might not agree. It's my understanding that Wikinews has a different license than Wikimedia Commons, so you might want to double-check with someone who knows about the licensing issues (Erik?) before you proceed, as the script for the video was written by other contributors who might not agree to such an upload, if the license on Commons is now more (or less?) restrictive than the one on Wikinews.

During my recent holiday in northeastern China, Wikipedia and Wikinews were not reachable the couple of times I tried to use the net. They simply "timed out".

It's still a pleasant diversion to read Wikinews once in a while to see how it's doing. The selection of stories seems a bit odd at times, but it's nice to see that Wikinews is still going strong!

Thanks for writing.

Cheers,

David Vasquez

Happy editing Bawolff ☺☻ 02:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It is in the public domain, as that was the copyright policy at the time.--Eloquence 14:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Wanted to make 100% sure. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

commons:Image:Angela_Merkel_CDU.jpg
Kannst du dir mal obengenanntes Bild anschauen, das die Commons uns nach einem Jahr unter den Füßen weggelöscht haben. Wenn mich ich mich richtig entsinne war es von der Seite der CDU/CSU-Fraktion so dass zumindest Fair Use möglich sein sollte. --+Deprifry+ 08:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * TV debate between German chancellor Schröder and opposition leader Merkel held, One week before German federal election, the race is wide-open again, Results of 2005 German federal election, Schröder gives up German chancellorship ambitions, makes way for Merkel, Angela Merkel elected new German chancellor und German Social and Christian Democrats agree on new government. --+Deprifry+ 09:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ping.--+Deprifry+ 19:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you possibly undelete this file at commons commons:Image:Tsirene.ogg
Old audio wikinews file, PD like the other spoken wikinews from that time. used in Tropical Storm Irene to intensify, may hit U.S. coast. Thanks Bawolff ☺☻ 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Done.--Eloquence 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thankyou. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 04:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A proposed main page design
Can you take a look at this and tell me what you think of it on my talk page? —     02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Messedrocker is Amgine; here's the undisputable proof
"...so I restored his talk page history and replaced it with a notice. —  [[User talk:Messedrocker|<font "

Abba 12:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That explains how we live in two different countries and look entirely different, right? —     21:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Also to explain it, User talk:Amgine used to have a message that I wrote for the talk page. The edit itself, as well as the history, has since been relocated to User talk:Amgine/archives... see for yourself. Apparently, Amgine liked the message so much that he replaced the redirect that was at User talk:Amgine (due to the pagemove) with that message. Next time you make conspiracy theories, do a bit more in-depth research. —     21:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Funny :-)--Eloquence 23:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Belated Congrats from Thunderhead

 * ;-) Thank you!--Eloquence 23:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Serve us well on the Board! Thunderhead (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My belated congrats too. Someone I voted for actually won something for once!! Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about Wikiyouth
Me and Messed were talking on IRC about Wikiyouth. How am I involved in this situation? I know a lot about running forums, for the record, Thunderhead (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for restoring my talk page. It really is sad that people want to destroy Wikinews. Thunderhead (talk) (Check out my RFA test) 22:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Seconded. Not a very friendly guy, Mcripper....--amiableamy 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Um... arn't vandal's all unfriendly? — F e  llow  Wiki  News   (W)  22:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's beside the point.--amiableamy 22:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, not all vandals blank 20 pages, but yes. No vandals are friendly. Thunderhead (talk) (Check out my RFA test) 22:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I QUIT!
 My Letter of Resignation: To Whom It May Concern:

Since I have joined Wikinews I have been helpful in stopping vandalism. I however feel that now is my time to leave. Wikinews has several flaws with its design, one of which is also what makes Wikinews, well Wikinews. Unfortunately, I feel that this makes work of updating a simple article into a big problem when everybody goes renaming breaking stories which causes a big mess, and I can't handle the mess this causes anymore.

Furthermore, Wikinews has successfully alienated me by undermining all my work, all my work for Wikinews. I fell that my work here cannot continue and I hereby resign as an Admin or Wikinews, and also as a User of Wikinews. At this point a bureaucrat may remove my Admin status, and I wish you all luck with your future endeavors.

Sincerely,

Ryan524 05:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ryan
 * Adminship removed as requested--Cspurrier 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

problems with illigal and not true info on wiki damaging our name and products law suites in here before about these subjects
Hello Wiki,

I send mails and mails but no answer. Also the editors keep on going with untreu info and abusive language to say other powerballs are pirats fake and so on. We ourselves have a outdated patent out of 1994 till 2004 in the Benelux to prove we where before on the market with powerball Gyro's. Lawsuites and so on also for high court has proven this. So a lot of proves also if you go back in webarchives you cab read that others brands where before on the market with the Gyro principe, and not one independed institute has compare the brands and tested them. ''' We sell also a German version IRONPOWER that was the first metal 2004 as on the NSD website is that their version was released in 2005. And so on. Yes my English is not OK but if you go trough the history in Wiki and read all the crap in the diferent languages that are lies not treu or damaging other Brands powerballs then wikipedia proves here is not a correct medium at all. '''

John mail is lyc ad powerball.cc or contact on that webpage

See my mails.

Powerball Gyro excercisers subject are giving wrong and not true information also legaly there are things not right. We are powerball importer for over 13 years now and some are trying to damage our good name and Brands ( the buyed before powerballs from us and now importing themselves after they liked our products and so on trying to damage our name but also to give wrong information to readers and users on the internet. They had to pay a claim of us and placed a rectification and so on.

We are Dynabee Brand holder and also patent in Benelux and Germany, we are selling and importing Dynabee, Ironpower and Nanosecond poweballs all legal and original powerballs, but in the topics some as user Dimitri are saying that others are fake and so on.) The High Court inhere has also proven that we are right and so on.

Yes I am not good in the French and Spanish version but can see that they are wrong to. ( and english is not my native language ok)

Also the French http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerball and Spanish http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynabee versions are saying things that are not treu.

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerball

As Nasa has nothing to do with the invention that's misleading the Wiki readers for the advantage of a powerball importer!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerball_%28exercise_tool%29

The name powerball is a desciption and common name for Gyro exercisers and therefore not one powerball could be fake. But also we have older powerballs years before Nanosecond was on the Market so who is the ... if its allowed to call others fake... ( no there are more Brands of powerballs al trying do their best;)

Also Nasa has nothing to do with the invention at all that's misleading the Wiki readers Dynabee 1973 by Variety Plastics has the first Patents of this invention and Ken Pravitz was the legal owner then.

Again and again trying to call others fake this is not legal as, proven for high court in our Country.

The other Importer ther has to pay a lot of money for the simular statements. And also they had to place rectifications and so on!

Only it is also not legal but as you al can read its more and more a strugle between Brands and Importers wich can damage and cost money!

We where the first powerball importers in Europe 1994 and patent Holder in Benelux for Dynabee powerballs. We have proved this for Court laws several times.

Regards,

John

Yes there are more commercial links also to our sites and so on if not please remove them all!!

Links with prove in Dutch and German and also from the Court Laws are here

http://www.powerball.cc/rectificatie-mill-products.htm Rectification of the importer by Law. http://www.powerball.cc/rechtspraak.pdf Court Law where also powerball is a proven common name and so on. http://www.boek9.nl/default.aspx?id=2515#body High Court law in Benelux where the importer that was our custommer before has to pay a claim.

A German university research about the Gyro proves also Dynabee was the first original but also this link is explaining the principe of powerball with drawings was removed before from the subject to. http://www.powerballeu.com/powerballdynabeeuitvinding.pdf

Ticker
Cowicide has suggested code that could be used to provide a ticker that cycles through the RSS feed stories. I'm not totally sure it is compatible, can you look at what's on the water cooler and pass an opinion? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Might Be Interested...
in this discussion. We'd love to hear your opinion on this.  Thunderhead  ►  07:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New Image policy
Your comment on the page about the new image policy seemed fairly relaxed, but our contributors aren't. I think it would be worthwhile to participate in the discussion and actually impart some information about what may and may not be allowable. If you simply wait for a list of questions to be formed we will lose people who think the foundation does not value their contributions. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

see --Brian McNeil / talk 19:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't leave over the image dispute. Granted it's utterly retarded, but I left because I have been bored with Wikinews for several months. I wanted to run off while I still could. 67.81.69.219 03:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)`
 * Without getting too deeply involved, Messed?  Thunderhead  ►  04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Image use policy/New wikimedia policy action plan/FAQ was quite seriously in error. I've corrected it somewhat. Please review it. Uncle G 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be pushing here on something not so easily pushed
I wonder what Rickard Falkvinge would say. Meaning "here", you can have this this image, or text, or quote, or idea, but the The Pirate Bay cannot move forward with it without attribution to its originator. It's free, you can have it on your private little island, but will you attribute? Or maybe more to the point, would you expand with grace to the originator? Currently, the Internet lacks "grace". (I'm an example) -Edbrown05 09:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Not sure what you're getting at. Wikinews used to be in the public domain, but the lawyers told us that it's very hard to effectively dedicate anything into the PD. That's why we switched to CC-BY. All that is required is attribution to "Wikinews", not to the individual contributors.--Eloquence 10:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what I was trying to get at is more than I understand.

When I look at the article Seinfeld on HBO award: "Awards are stupid", I see an article with an image "gracefully" attributed to Alan Light. Where Alan Light is a person outside of the Wikimedia community accorded more rights than somone within the community.

Yet in this article, Virginia law bans mobile phone use by teen drivers, mostly written by me, attribution for the image seems not relevant. It seems to me not relevant because I am a member of of the Wikimedia community who has an appreciation that contributions are given with good faith to , the community. So I get nothing back for that.

I admit that I targeted the report linked in the previous paragraph for something to say to you here and now. I don't pretend to have answers, and if you do, then you are a magician.

An image isn't what makes Wikipedia or Wikinews. Text does. Images make Commons, and there they have no concept that an image description can take the form of bloging, which is what I have done on the last three images I uploaded there: see the latest, unreverted, image description of.

But even more to the point, giving credit to an image in an article is so much bullshit when the text comes harder, and is more creative; yet no credit is given to original text. I don't believe I know what I'm talking about! -Edbrown05 07:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it has something to do with the tune of FlickR gets more attribution than Wikinews contributors. If FlickR images are receiveing a so-called image credt, then why are not Wikinewsians recieving an article credit? Because they don't assert it? Dunno. -Edbrown05 07:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

EDP
Can you comment: User:DragonFire1024/Images to request for EDP. I relicensed all, but the listed images in that link, to CC 2.5 DragonFire1024 12:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm glad you relicensed most of your images. I'm not sure what it is you are trying to achieve with the rest of them. Why are you trying to keep those non-free? You say "very significant in terms of news at the time" -- which would be all the more reason to allow others to build upon them. As for the documents, the text itself appears to be copyrighted, so we can only use these under fair use. For these, it should indeed be fine to use an EDP (but not the CC-BY-ND -- just put a fair use tag on it).--Eloquence 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats not what the new policy says. Free use can be put into EDP if need be. Its does not state that the license cannot be CC ND. If I "just put a fair use" tag on it, then that tag is just as good as this one. DragonFire1024 20:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also on EDP in FAQ: The resolution requires that the EDP be minimal, and not enable the use of non-free content where free content is a reasonable alternative. We must ensure that our Wikinews:Fair use policy is in line with that. There are no reasonable images to replace the ones listed in my EDP request. DragonFire1024 21:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark
Mark is still waiting to be "made up" after a successful RfA. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Video Wikinews
See: Video 2.0. DragonFire1024 00:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi... We have a G8 candidate
If you can drop by accreditation requests and give a considered opinion, it would be most welcome. We have someone who would like accreditation for the purpose of attending the G8. They need a signed letter - and I suspect the appropriate wording is (a) far beyond my legalese, (b) I cannot sign on behalf of the site, and (c) since I don't speak German I can't have a chat with the admins over on de.wikinews and make sure we're not trying to send a terrorist. (kidding Sean.)

I suppose this issue eventually had to come up with Wikinews. Press rules do sometimes give us headaches, and I'd really appreciate if you - and perhaps the board? - give the issue some consideration. If we're to cover events like the G8 we may need to go further than calling people freelance. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just trying to think of ways to solve this... Sean would be a "community nominated representitive". How creative can we get and not actually say he represents the foundation? --Brian McNeil / talk 00:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

 * As an update, you are too late to comment on this. The wording of the letter that I (personally) issued to Sean is available via the accreditation page. I did so as a representative of our community, although it would have been better to have someone with the foundation who could also be considered part of our community.
 * I hope you'll join the rest of us in crossing our fingers that Sean actually gets admitted to the G8. Stranger things have happened. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Any kind of official accreditation by the WMF Board will need legal review, as it might alter the legal status of the WMF and confer additional liabilities. It might be sensible to set up a separate organization for this purpose.--Eloquence 07:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Good to see you Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 08:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Serious copyright infringment/"1 trick pony"
This site: Canada Now is copy and pasting Wikinews articles, without any attribution, and in fact are claiming all material as theirs. Since there close to about 10 or so articles all copied from Wikinews to there, I can only list a few:

 * (an Original Reporting article too) Copied from: "Woofstock" dog festival in Toronto, Ontario, Canada
 * Copied from: Left wing of Atlantis may have been damaged.

Just a few that do not give Wikinews the slightest bit of credit...intentionally. You cannot e-mail anyone on the contact page because none of the e-mails are real. I tried. The form does not work, because you can put in the right code in as many times as you want or any code and no matter what, its invalid. DragonFire1024 12:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To add to this, ECanadaNow.com is registered through DomainsByProxy and while they publish an MX record they are not running a SMTP server at all. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been going through the javascript on that page, i highly doubt the form does anything. It doesn't send any information on what CAPTCHA it is using (as far as i can tell), and on any non-error response, all it does is display the message from the server and change the captcha (to a random one, without changing any form values to reflect the new captcha). (which might be okay if the message was something like email succesfully sent, (nevermind, that is probably as it should be). Unless i missed something when reading it, I'm fairly certain the form is useless as the server wouldn't know what CAPTCHA you're recieveing. Perhaps we should post on their forms. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

 * I'm taking a note of this and will forward it to our new legal counsel once he is officially hired.--Eloquence 07:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews Accedidation
Wikinews allows users to gain press credentials through a simple community vote, and allows users to keep the credentials, even when users have been inactive for over a year (although an Inactive Policy has been proposed). Do you feel that there needs to be a stricter policy as to who can get accredidation, and the activity of accredited users? Also, there has been some debate on Wikinews regarding Wikimedia Commons users requesting accredidation on Wikinews to take photos. Do you think Commons needs to set up a seperate accredidation process? Thunderhead 18:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We also have consensus on asking the board to give Accredited members some sort of email address for Wikinews. See the Water Cooler. Thunderhead 01:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me comment on this briefly as well. I think that the need to give people email addresses for accreditation purposes is not very high: to the best of my knowledge there haven't been any denials of credentials based on lack of a professional email.  Besides, Wikinews does not have enough stature yet to cause people to take note of Wikinews email addresses.  Indeed, I think that if we start giving out email addresses to a particular class of users, without specific demonstrated need, we will end up creating a new privileged class: those with email addresses.  This can easily cause a rush on people requesting accreditation solely for the email address.  This is further enhanced by the fact that afaik no other individual Wikimedia projects give out email addresses to any users.
 * I think that if there is some case for email addresses, it is for demonstrable needs. For example, I had once applied for a grant for Wikinews and it would have been great to use the wikinews.org email address instead of my personal gmail address.  Personally, I would recommend a system whereby a steward is allowed to create an email address on a project, given that the user desiring an address has to justify to a steward the need for the address, and that the project has an approved policy of community revocation of other users' addresses. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * You're wrong. You can reach me, for example, at stevenfruitsmaak AT wikipedia DOT be . This shouldn't be discussed here.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

 * An inactivity policy sounds reasonable, though I would suggest taking into account activity in Wikimedia in general. The goal should not be to punish users for not editing Wikinews, but to reduce the risk of bad faith action or account takeover. If a user has taken a break on Wikinews, even for a long time, but is still active on other projects in good standing, I see no reason why their accreditation should be revoked.

 * Regarding e-mail addresses and such, I am somewhat concerned about the WMF getting legally involved in the authorization of Wikinews reporters. It might be sensible to set up a separate, small organization to handle Wikinews accreditation issues. The WMF could then license the Wikinews mark to that organization for this purpose alone. But, I am sure our new Executive Director will have some interesting thoughts on this topic, as you will understand when their identity is revealed.--Eloquence 07:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Misinterpretation
FYI, I didn't say that you wanted Wikinews out, I thought Kate was a man because the picture doesn't look very feminine and River Tarnell didn't sound female to me. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Gotcha, thanks. I'd still like to understand what I'm saying that is so "abominable" though.--Eloquence 19:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

 * On reading your answers (here) now, they don't seem so abominable any more. Still, I think the communication with the Board is abominable. A mailing list is a horrible means of communication, and not everyone has access. I understand that many wiki's have irrelevant questions. We should really have a group of trusted volunteers who filter those questions, because I think some of the questions we have failed to get Board attention for are significant. Board members should also, imho, spend time listening to those hundreds of question, instead of being occupied with programming matters and such -we need managers, not software developers. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Usurp request
Hello, there. I've placed a username change request (more accurately, a request to usurp an existing, unused username) at Changing_username, and it is requested on that page that I also mention this on the talk page for each bureaucrat. Thank you, in advance, for your assistance. user:justen   talk   07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You might notice in your history, the usurp was completed before I even finished posting on your page (and, as such, I was logged out between edits). So, thanks speedy bureaucrats.  :)    user:justen    talk   07:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

More copyright infringement
Hello Eloquence. I notice that you got involved in the copyright issue regarding eCanadaNow. The same type of thing is happening over at eOntarioNow. Could you look into the issue when you get a chance? Cheers, Jcart1534 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Is this still happening? The referenced page seems to be already down.--Eloquence 16:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WN:AR
We have an accreditation request from someone from de.wikinews. Can you help with checking them out? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity
A number of people seem bothered by the inactive admin list. Enough so that they were going round & round making silly policy proposals. I resolved the station by rewriting their policy to essentially say "No one will hold it against you if you just rfda inactive people." This seems to have made them happy without unending fights over impossibly radical policy changes. So everybody wins. It's a bit of process over head in votes, but I don't think it's really consuming anyone's time, well unless that's what their into, so it's harmless. Anywho, enjoy man. :) Nyarlathotep 01:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)  ps, Just a note, this would never have annoyed people if the list was formatted better (or ideally if the inactive admins were listed in some less obnoxious way).

Request
I have requested a user name change, at Changing username. Wilhelm 22:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiBureau Germany
Would you like to join WikiBureau Germany? Kingjeff - (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please rename me
Hi, I have changed my username at my homewiki and want to to it here to. Please rename me to Calandrella. Here is confirmation. Thanks, Leo Johannes (talk) 19:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Deadminship
Hallo, Eloquence, just thougth I'd let you know that there is currently a discussion at this permissions page on whether to remove your bureacrat and admin rights, please make a statement if you wish. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk]  21:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the note. Bawolff also emailed me about this.

 * I think there's an important distinction between de-adminship for inactivity (which I've never found to be a good policy, but which seems to be an idea that tends to be adopted by wiki communities sooner or later in one form another), and de-adminship because of perceived conflict of interest alone. If Wikinews wants to adopt an inactivity policy and change my status on that basis, that's completely reasonable; I am unlikely to do any editing on Wikinews in the foreseeable future.

 * I think de-adminship because of a perceived conflict of interest due to employment with WMF is a problematic precedent. It does not prevent any actual intervention, while limiting the extent to which (some? all?) people employed by WMF can engage as volunteers, and does so unreasonably broadly. For a COI of this nature, an IMO much preferable course of action is to require volunteers to fully disclose their affiliations (be it WMF or otherwise), and potentially to limit their editing activity or use of advanced tools based on said affiliations. The community can then enforce such limitations as needed. In any event, whatever the policy ends up being, I hope it is documented and discussed, and applied consistently.

 * That's my take on it, anyway; I won't be able to get further involved in the discussion, but am interested in the outcome.--Eloquence (talk) 07:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Hi Eloquence, don't know if you're still monitoring this page but thought I'd just give a heads-up, the vote closed as no consensus and your rights were retained. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

forgot to put notes
Dear Sir, I've just written an article in original reporting category http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Sita_Navmi_celebrated_at_Punaura_Dham,_Bihar

Now, as per the Wikinews policy, I wish to put notes on the discussions page. But I am unable to see any discussion page now after creating the article. Please help Sir. I would be grateful.

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) 21:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Bureaucrat Flag
Here's the request for the removal of your bcrat flag over at Meta. -- Sken   my talk 17:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Inactive Policy
Per the proposed inactive policy, yopur account has been nominated to have its privileges reduced. --

Being bothered by User:Pi zero
He is bothering me with rubbish each edit. He is never contributing. He deletes articles comments sites here, although the article is existing. Articles under development are clean up articles. I might not write about RB Leipzig. My started articles have interest and he says that other archived articles are which from amateur clubs, university clubs or something else. He wants to rename my name here and is not rename me. My articles are written after the style such as about other proven football match reports. He is psychic unable to name reasons. Please remove him from the board! He neither productive nor socially competent or educated, for a globally representative on public free sites. --Nikebrand (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Being bothered by User:Pi zero
He is bothering me with rubbish each edit. He is never contributing. He deletes articles comments sites here, although the article is existing. Articles under development are clean up articles. I might not write about RB Leipzig. My started articles have interest and he says that other archived articles are which from amateur clubs, university clubs or something else. He wants to rename my name here and is not rename me. My articles are written after the style such as about other proven football match reports. He is psychic unable to name reasons. Please remove him from the board! He neither productive nor socially competent or educated, for a globally representative on public free sites. --Nikebrand (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Privileges
'''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.

 * Per this version of WN:RfP, you may review the public announcement of this change. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page of Wikinews
Hello. By looking at the contributions, you created the Main Page of Wikinews at its first incarnation. I discussed with others redesigning the Main Page of Wikinews at Talk:Main Page. I invite you to discuss this matter there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Eloquence hasn't been involved here in... quite some time. Just pointing out.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, but I noticed that he's semi-(in)active in other projects. --George Ho (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eloquence


text:
Brazilian soccer player's mother has been kidnapped

Miss Marina Souza, aged 43, was kidnapped last Saturday, November 6, in Praia Grande,, during a barbecue with her relatives. She is the mother of Robson de Souza, known as (Little Robin), a Brazilian  player for the. Since the incident, Robson De Souza ('Robinho') has made few public appearances and stopped playing soccer, troubling his team Santos. "I hope this all finishes well and that I can go back to playing football again," he was quoted by  on November 9.

Robinho is considered one of the best Brazilian forward players at the present time and he is an important player for Santos.

The authorities are cautious to release any information concerning the case, as this could jeopardize both the investigations and Ms. Souza's life.


text:
Colin Powell Resigns as U.S. Secretary of State, Rice Likely Successor

Colin Powell submitted his long-expected resignation as of Monday, November 15, and his resignation was accepted by George W. Bush. His resignation letter was sent to the President on Friday. Powell has said that it was always his intention to serve only one term.

The  said that Powell often had disputes with officials holding what the newspaper termed "more hawkish" views.

On Tuesday, President Bush announced his nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice as Powell's successor.  cited senior Bush administration officials as saying that her deputy,, will succeed her in her role as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs if she is confirmed as Secretary of State.


text:
Talk:Brazilian soccer player's mother has been kidnapped/Review

This article has been submitted for review by the Wikinews community. The review period is currently a minimum of 8 hours for regular articles and 4 hours for urgent stories. An article needs to find consensus - no objections - in the following categories in order to be accepted for publication. See also Article stages for information on what constitutes a valid objection.

Is the article neutral?
''All factual claims need to be attributed or sourced. On-topic information which is relevant to the article should be added. Off-topic information should NOT be added to "balance out" an article.''

No issues I can see.--Eloquence 03:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's fine Lyellin 03:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is the article accurate and have sources been cited?
''All facts should be verifiable. Factual claims which are attributed to a person or group, but considered false by another person or group can remain in the article as long as the controversy is accurately represented.''

No issues I can see.--Eloquence 03:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Also fine Lyellin 03:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is the article legal?
''Does the article violate any laws of the state of Florida in the United States? Specifically, does it violate other people's copyright, in text or images? Please make sure that no images have been directly copied from a non-free source without permission, and that any brief text quoted from a non-free source is attributed accurately. Use Google News and Google Search and pick individual phrases from the article to verify this.''

No issues I can see.--Eloquence 03:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Also fine Lyellin 03:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does the article comply with our policies and guidelines?
Aside from the above categories, does the article comply with Content guide and Style guide?'

No issues I can see. Sources at the bottom might be expanded a bit.--Eloquence 03:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Seems to be fine. Lyellin 03:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is the article comprehensive?
''Relevant information on the topic should be included, while keeping in mind timeliness. Given that an almost infinite amount can be said about any topic, objections in this category carry less weight than those in other categories.''

A bit on the short side, a bit out of date.--Eloquence 03:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Eloquence, but given how new the project is, the time issue is fine. Lyellin 03:31, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
The grammar must be checked. I think that my English can be improved here. --carlosar.Nov 15 17:52:28 UTC 2004
 * I corrected some grammar and removed the bit about Robson's goals, since I don't really see how this is relevant to the kidnapping of his mother... Foeke 17:58, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your colaboration. I think the information about the goals is important because we can't assume the reader knows the player. I think something must be said about the player and the team, and how the player is important to team. I think it is important saying about Real Madrid interest because that says how relevant is the information at the world sport scenario. Maybe should I put some information about Robinho in Wikipedia. I am waiting another comments.--carlosar Nov 15 18:08:37 UTC 2004

 * It is ok saying Little Robin but you must say Robinho too, because the player is known around the world by the name Robinho.--carlosar Nov 15 18:08:37 UTC 2004

Since the incident, Robson De Souza ('Robinho') has not appeared in public. >> I think this is not exactly a correct information. What I am sure(and I can prove) is that Robinho is not playing anymore. --carlosar Nov 15 18:08:37 UTC 2004

What is the best way to say Robinho is not playing for Santos since the incident? Or: is it really correct saying:Since the incident, Robson De Souza ('Robinho') has not appeared in public.?.--carlosar Nov 15 18:12:37 UTC 2004

 * I changed it to "has made few public appearances", which seems to be more accurate.--Eloquence


text:
Category:November 14, 2004

it:Categoria:14 novembre 2004

title: Category:November 14, 2004


text:
Category:November 13, 2004

it:Categoria:13 novembre 2004

title: Category:November 13, 2004


text:
Talk:Palestinians to elect new president on January 9

I personally am pro-Palestine, but I think it's important to note that some people find the term "Palestinians" offensive and will tell you that there are no Palestinians.


text:
Template:Discussion

Read the peer review discussion which led to the publication of this article

Feel free to post a comment below. This may include letters to the editor.

title: Template:Discussion


text:
Talk:President of China lunches with Brazilian President

A style issue for future stories: I think we should leave out "Mr" and similar such things unless the person is primarily known by them, just saying "Hu Juntao" rather than "Mr Hu Jintao". I can envision things like "The Right Honorable Tony Blair" and "The Honorable Clarence Thomas", and it'll quickly get ridiculous-sounding and take up too much story-space. --Delirium 07:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Image wiki mark fixed
There was a problem with:

Unfortunately the wiki was not recognizing the  ABr  and the link was not been shown correctly. I have tried to fix but I had no success, so I removed:  ABr]] . I think that the wiki markup doesn't work with a long inside the [Image:]. See history for details. -- Carlosar 20:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:The bellman

If you're not using Firefox, you're not surfing the web, you're suffering it

G'day The bellman is a character from The Hunting of the Snark by Lewis Carroll. My real name is Robin Shannon and i live in Canberra, Australia. If you want to contact me by email or with jabber/gtalk you can do so by using my first name followed by @ then shannon.id.au. I also have a website which is nicely devoid of content.

The Rules (please feel free to add more rules on how to live life, just dont get offended if i deleate them should i not like them)
 * Sing songs, spin stories, love, laugh and drink wine
 * Never take yourself too seriously
 * Free your heart from hatred
 * Free your mind from worries
 * Live simply
 * Give more
 * Expect less
 * Ignore all rules
 * Eat chili with eyes wide open
 * Do good, where practical; and do good where it isn't aswell
 * Give Kelly a hug

Subpages

 * sandbox
 * Writing Contest

Useful stuff
July 29, 2024

== Sources ==

*

[[Category:]]

title: User:The bellman