text:
Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2008/Q3

This is the archive of Deletion Requests that were closed from July 1, 2008 through September 30, 2008.

Texas Congressman reported to be on Obama's VP shortlist
Article is no longer news, and it can't be published now. Gopher65talk 16:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
I'll note that this isn't actually about Joe Biden, it's about Chet Edwards. I don't see how this could be redirected to the Joe Biden article, as they are about two different people. Gopher65talk 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No but it is about the vp selection and there is a comment about edwards in the article, and instead of just deleting something, merging seems like a good answer. The Mind's Eye (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Gopher65talk 16:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * perhaps this can be merged with US candidate Barack Obama announces Joe Biden as his running mate via text message, The Mind's Eye (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Per The Mind's Eye.  Majorly  talk  17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * too late to merge now. This is stale. --SVTCobra 21:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Disney lawsuit
Just a copy/paste job. Not formatted correctly, etc. Bad title. Needs a lot of work if anybody really wanted to write an article on this it might be best to start from the beginning. (--Calebrw (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)).

Votes
per nom. (--Calebrw (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)) - ug, another cut and paste job. Why do people do that. These can be speedy deleted for copyright violation though, can't they? Gopher65talk 19:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes they can. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

def. The Mind's Eye (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Extreme templating
This might be funny, or might have at one point in time, but considering it is never used and never will be constructively since it serves no useful purpose I propose it is deleted. Adambro (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * the reason it appears unused is that the articles on which it is used either get improved or — more likely — get deleted. I see no harm. It has been used within the last fornight, I believe. --SVTCobra 23:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Per nom. Cirt (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see it serving any useful purpose.  Majorly  talk  16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Silly. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 18:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * . Not useful. It's better to remove the superfluous templates instead of posting this. Lysy (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Update
There have been some comments raised about whether or not to use this template. This deletion discussion should hopefully assess the community's input on whether or not this template should be kept. As I have recently been involved in discussion and placed the template on an article recently, I will not weigh in. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * While I think notifying users of updates have their place, I don't think that the middle of the top line of the story is the place for them. GreenReaper (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This template has been useful in preventing newcomers from updating old news stories and keeping forward-pointing "Related news" nearly non-existent. I do agree that it is an ugly template. It is used in a number of articles, however. I don't know if it can be "saved" or if we can have any other kind of link that points "forward" in "news time". --SVTCobra 02:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * As it stands, this template is irredeemable. It is one of the ugliest pieces of wikicode I have ever seen. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty ugly, and it's not actually needed here. We don't need a template telling us something needs an update.  Majorly  talk  23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * although hideous, it is both usefull and in use. While I approve of thinking up a better plan, there is no ppoint in deleting this untillone has been debated properly. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it needs to be rewritten, I'm sure someone can do that part of it. I feel that it is useful. If someone in the distant future were to stumble upon a story, say "Suspect in 2001 anthrax attack dies of apparent suicide" and it updated to "Alleged Anthrax killer Bruce Ivins reportedly made edits to Wikipedia" and that updated to "US government points to dead scientist as 'lone anthrax attacker'" that user would get a nice chain of stories to read. It's the opposite of related news, which is for past stories: update is for futures stories. Just my thoughts. August 8, 2008 —Calebrw (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * per others. Anonymous101talk 16:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * as a hideous template doing a task which I'm not even convinced we should be doing. If we are to add links to newer stories then we do at least need to come up with a much better way of doing so. Adambro (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't we just make it purdy? Ya know, fit with the rest of the templates? -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 18:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 TAITRONICS starts its Asian Tour in Bangkok, Thailand
Old news, about event from July 10,. Anonymous101talk 21:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Since I posted several news from TAITRA's trade show, no one think my news are suitable in Wikinews, if anyone still think my news are unimportant, I think my accreditation should be revoked by myself, and I won't post any news to here forever because anyone still think my news should be abandoned and worthless. Frankly to say, I still think my news shouldn't be majorly modified by the others, I think I have to do my style. This is my bottom line, if this news still to be deleted, I will move this news into my Wiki site as anyone didn't respect my news. Brock contact... 13:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Get down off your high horse and stop being a drama queen. Quite frankly, it's getting old and boring. No-one has ever said your news stories are worthless or unsuitable or even unwanted. Your contributions are as welcome as anyone elses. However, due to the quality of your English, they take longer than the average time to copyedit, understand, and review. This is made even harder as they are OR reports, so we have few sources to work from. Accept that - while not an ideal situation - not every one of them is going to make it past the review process, whether it is due to time not being available, people simply missing them in the list, or realising when it is too late. Also accept that your standard of English is not acceptable for published news stories - yes it is harsh to say it, but it is the truth. We cannot publish articles that natives cannot read and understand, let alone those who are from other nationalities who speak English as a second, third, or even fourth language. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Since this is the indefinite truth, I decided to do the self-revocation of my accreditation. Anyone won't see any trade show from my post SINCE this time, now! Brock contact... 14:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yawn. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 14:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I don't consider your stories to be any less important than other tech related stories. It's just that your English is inadequate. Most of the time I can't understand even the basic gist of your articles, never mind any subtle nuances that you are trying to get across. Don't think we are picking on you; we aren't. It's just that you shouldn't be writing for an English wiki any more than I should be writing for a Spanish wiki. My Spanish simply isn't up to the standard that would be required. If I learnt more Spanish then I could write in Spanish, and the same is true for you and English. Gopher65talk 14:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The enthusiasm is undisputed, but the use of the English language simply isn't up to scratch. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A damn shame given recent focus on retention. Rico was probably the most prolific original reporting journalist we ever had. --SVTCobra 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * sadly, as this user seem(s)(ed) keen, but it's too much work for the rest of us.  Majorly  talk  23:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User seems... Unhappy -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:RingtailedFox/Directing Buttons
This template should not be in main-template space - if anything it could be in userspace (but even in that case there should not be a redirect from main-template space). Cirt (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * When did this user last edit anyway? --Brian McNeil / talk 11:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The user actually last edited 31 July 2008. Cirt (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Adambro (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * to their user space. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * or Move it to their user spaceAnonymous101talk 19:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * , definitely. The Mind's Eye (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * , makes sense.  Majorly  talk  23:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * is the only logical decision. Closing admin should make sure to clean up any latent redirects. --SVTCobra 02:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews talk:2008/April/10
I accidentially bumped into this "talk" page for a date. It seems to be used like a comments page or a blog. Maybe I should have "speedied" but this was unique from what I have previously seen. I hope there are not many more like it. --SVTCobra 00:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Via a Special:PrefixIndex search, here is the complete list of pages in Wikinews talk with titles starting with "200": I haven't looked at any of these yet, so I don't know what kind of content might be there. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikinews talk:2005/April
 * Wikinews talk:2005/April/13
 * Wikinews talk:2005/April/21
 * Wikinews talk:2005/April/3
 * Wikinews talk:2005/February
 * Wikinews talk:2005/February/16
 * Wikinews talk:2005/January
 * Wikinews talk:2005/June/4
 * Wikinews talk:2005/March/10
 * Wikinews talk:2005/March/29
 * Wikinews talk:2005/March/30
 * Wikinews talk:2005/October/14
 * Wikinews talk:2006/January
 * Wikinews talk:2006/September/19
 * Wikinews talk:2007, a year overview
 * Wikinews talk:2007/April
 * Wikinews talk:2007/June
 * Wikinews talk:2007/September
 * Wikinews talk:2008/April/10
 * Having looked at all of these, only that one seems to have attracted anything significant other than people asking for corrections or interwikis. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 06:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This vote is for Wikinews talk:2008/April/10 only. As far as I am concerned, the other pages listed above are valid collaboration pages. Only Wikinews talk:2008/April/10 represents abuse IMO, with the possible exception of Wikinews talk:2006/September/19. --SVTCobra 01:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * - Agree with the nom that this could have simply been speedied to begin with, but no matter. Cirt (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that my Delete vote is only for the original page mentioned by in the nom. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 * -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 19:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * . They're far too old to be worth keeping.  Majorly  talk  23:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol no support vote.svg|15px]] I am afraid I cannot endorse the group deletion of all pages listed above, especially Talk:Wikinews' overview of the year 2007 which is of significant collaboration. I stand by my nomination, which is for a page abusing "talk" by communicating about entirely unrelated matters. The rest seem to be valid talk/collaboration pages. --SVTCobra 01:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with SVTCobra that this one page is not appropriate, but there is no reason to delete the rest of them and several of them include significant contributions and discussions, which is the point of having them in the first place. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 02:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Europe Trip boosts lead, but not as expected
Per problems with the article as expressed by, and in addition the article is quite similar to US presidential candidate Barack Obama's lead in the polls increases. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't look very salvageable as is. I cannot find any sources that back up the claim that there was expected to be a large increase from this visit. That's the one thing I could think of that would make me maybe vote for keeping but without that there's nothing we can reasonably do. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * though not really because I share SVTCobra's concerns, I'd say I agree with Brianmc's comment, "How is reporting on a poll an editorial?". However, we already seem to have a better article so this looks like a duplicate. Adambro (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Editorial might not be the best word since it doesn't give an opinion about what should happen, but it is highly speculative, especially the claim that this somehow did not provide as large a boost in the polls as would be expected. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sentences like this: "John McCain has actually lost some voters and this is more likely due to recent gaffes than Obama’s Europe Trip." is editorializing. --SVTCobra 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The user started the second article after the first was tagged for editorialising. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It could have been fixed, but US presidential candidate Barack Obama's lead in the polls increases this was written instead, so we should delete. --SVTCobra 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is so similar to US presidential candidate Barack Obama's lead in the polls increases, and may have some usuable things, so i think merging maybe the answer. The Mind's Eye (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 19:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Closed head injury Locked in syndrome Pakistan
Doesn't read like a news article, more like a blog, and looks like old news. Majorly (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Persepolis F.C.
Unused category, unlikely to be used in the near future. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per CSD O4; "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories". Adambro (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hassan Rohani
Unused category, unlikely to be used in the near future IMO. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per CSD O4; "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories". Adambro (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Hawthorn Football Club
Unused category, unlikely to be used in the near future IMO. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per CSD O4; "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories". Adambro (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Break
Unused template, not needed, doesn't look nice Anonymous101 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it is really necessary for you to vote. The presumption must be that if you nominate something for deletion that you think it should be deleted unless to explicitly state otherwise. Adambro (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, but for some reason it's how we've been doing things for a while. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, since it seems rather pointless perhaps it is something we should try avoiding doing in future. Adambro (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. Too abrasive, IMO. Cirt (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom as unused. Adambro (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * unused, there isn't anough breaking news at any given time for it to be likely that this will be used for some time. It's horrible enough to start from scratch anyway. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ugly and redundant. Majorly (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Arlington, Massachusetts
Category with one article. If we listed every town its size with a category of its own the results would be absurd. As with the others, recreation is easy if at any point there is enough coverage. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom Cirt (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * as above. Majorly (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mick Jagger
Has one article in. Not likely to be any/many more IMO so I think it should be deleted.Anonymous101 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * - People categories for clearly notable individuals are worthwhile, IMHO, we even have a template just for that purpose - people. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the people is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Mick Jagger is 64 years old and not doing anything that could go in the news at the momennt so I believe this should be deleted. If we had Wikinews 20 years ago, it would be different. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose your rationale does make sense - but at what point/number of pre-existing articles would you say it would be okay to keep/create the category? Cirt (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say it varies depending on the age of the category but I do not think that an almost three year old category should be kept if it has one article. Anonymous101 (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've often wondered that both when setting up and deleting categories near the borderline. I think we need to decide on a sensible amount and set it in stone, so we probably better thrash this out at length over at WC. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That sounds like a good idea. I kinda think at least 10 or so would be a good number. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm of the view that we don't need a category for everyone in an article or two. We can create them at the time they get enough coverage. It looks bad for us if people hit the category and then discover there's nothing else to see. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by . One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles.  Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Blood Red Sandman. Majorly (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Mahathir bin Mohamad
Category with one article, not needed IMO as he is not going to recieve much coverage and we don't have categorys for every former leader Anonymous101 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * - People categories for clearly notable individuals are worthwhile, IMHO, we even have a template just for that purpose - people. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the people is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by . One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles.  Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Cirt. Majorly (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Dianne Feinstein
Category with one article, not needed IMO as she is only a Senator Anonymous101 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * - People categories for clearly notable individuals are worthwhile, IMHO, we even have a template just for that purpose - people. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the people is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by . One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles.  Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Ann Coulter and Category:Ali Larijani
Both have one article in them. People who may well one day warrant categories, but there are loads of people who might. We should create as and when. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nomAnonymous101 (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * - People categories for clearly notable individuals are worthwhile, IMHO, we even have a template just for that purpose - people. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the people is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by . One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles.  Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Tom Harkin
Category with one article, not needed IMO he is only a Senator Anonymous101 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * - People categories for clearly notable individuals are worthwhile, IMHO, we even have a template just for that purpose - people. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Some individuals are notable, but, I believe, that they are not likely to receive much coverage in the near future so they are not in need of a category. I think the people is more for people like George W. Bush, who is always in the news. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Changed viewpoint per some good comments above by . One article in a category doesn't really necessitate the category - and I agree with that the category could always be recreated if there were more existing articles.  Cirt (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Tropical Despression One, 2006
Category with one article, not going to be more additionsAnonymous101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be loads of categories like this. We really need to crack down on disposing of them. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * as nom Cirt (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Festival_of_Cabaret
Empty category, not needed IMOAnonymous101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * as nom Cirt (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per CSD O4; "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories". Adambro (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Doritos Coolpedia
Only used in one article, not really too useful. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * , per nom. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous101 (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Elton John's picture found to be not indecent
This article was published on October 28, 2007 with a no date template. It has no sources other than a link to the photographers Wikipedia entry. I don't know how this slipped through the cracks, but it did and it should never have been published, in my opinion. --SVTCobra 18:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Although the article is not of publishable standard, it has been published for months and we shouldn't break the archive because we don't like an article, IMO. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC) I missed the thing saying no date template. Vote changed to Anonymous101 (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * , agree with nom. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. I don't mind "breaking the archives" by deleting articles which should never be published just as I don't mind doing so to remove images which should never have been included. Adambro (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * no date means it was never on the front page. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per all of the above Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fifa world cup org.jpg
I am proposing that this image be deleted because although it is tagged as CC-BY-SA-2.5 license, the image is a derivative work which leaves this license very much in question. Whilst this means that the CC license is invalid, there is of course the potential for this to be used under fair use as is done on the. However there appears to be no scope within our fair use policy's whitelist where this can be used. Also, in all but one instance this image is being used in a decorative manner which adds little to the article and doesn't really benefit our readers a great deal. Adambro (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

 * Image is of the iconic FIFA World Cup which, like Oscar, McDonald's double-arched building, and the Eiffel Tower, is also a logo or mark. It seems to me you would be putting forth less effort to find reasons why these images are fair use on Wikinews than trying to find reasons to remove them. -  Amgine | t 14:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Amgine, if you think my reasoning for nominating an image for deletion are wrong then simply say so, it is not necessary or helpful to brand these nominations as "bogus" just because you disagree. Regarding your suggestion that the World Cup is a logo or a trademark I would disagree, would you be able to link anything to support this? Adambro (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me you are looking first for a reason to delete the image, and second as to whether it's a good idea for this image to be deleted. This, and the previous nomination, have clear reasons to be on Wikinews and appear, to me, to have no justification for removal other than your personal campaign. Since your campaign has a long history, and is not a reason here, that would equate with a bogus listing. Bogosity, of course is a subjective measure. -  Amgine | t 15:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My "campaign" is to ensure that the images we host have a clear licensing situation. In this, and any other instances, I've considered that not to be the case and have felt unable to address this situation myself. This is why I raise it here, so that others with experience of different subjects can assess whether they can clarify the situation and if not for it to be deleted. I've done a hell of a lot of work regarding images on Wikinews and what you see appearing here on DR is the tip of the ice burg, those I don't feel I can deal with. Adambro (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

To add fuel to the fire I have responded to an email from Anthere and CC'd Kat Walsh. Anthere suggested this as Kat was instrumental in the drafting of the licensing resolution. [/me grumbles about her being on the scoop bouncelist.] It is fairly obvious from the way the vote is going that this image will be kept; with the way some people have "dug in" on this issue it may be viewed as, "kept in violation of policy". We can't go on like that. The policy needs to be here, on Wikinews, and should be the spirit of the licensing resolution, not the letter thereof.

If this means the Wikinews policy needs to be revised and re-approved by the board, then so be it. However I would point some people very bluntly at what our mission is - news. News needs to be timely. For this reason I believe Wikinews should be permitted to have fair use of pictures of living people. Can't get a free replacement in the week the article is on the front page? Tough. Get one later and the image under fair use is tagged as depreciated and no longer used on new articles. The archived article is not touched. If we don't stick to a principle like this, what's to stop us from ending up with a picture taken twenty years after an article is written stuck on it? Articles on Barack Obama winning his first primary showing him with grey hair from eight years in office? No thanks.

There are numerous other examples of what is fair use at a specific point in time. Everything on Wikinews is at a specific point in time, that should include the fair use criteria. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that I have ever suggested that we should be replacing unfree images where a free alternative is found. If a free alternative is found however it probably demonstrates that the fair use was invalid to start with and the unfree image should probably be removed. Removing unfree images rather than replacing them with free images which, as you note, is likely to be inappropriate.

 * Not being able to find a free image within the seven days during which the article is open for editing is not justification to use an unfree image. Any unfree image needs a robust fair use rationale which can reasonably be expected to continue to be valid in the future. The point that people seem to be missing is that for as long as we host an unfree image we are responsible for denfending its usage. An article being archived is not a sufficient defence to continue using an unfree/against policy image, it is perfectly possible to remove such images and I somehow doubt an article being archived would protect the WMF from legal accusations.

 * Again the mission of the project is abbreviated to "news", I think you'll find it is more specific than that, free news. Just because other news websites have images on most of their articles then it doesn't mean that we can or should. We have to work within the restriction of limiting unfree content. Adambro (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Its use doesn't really add to any of the articles. If there was an article about the trophy I would support its use, however. Anonymous101  13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, in his assult of reverting ALL the edits I made in order to remove my so-called copyvio, he reverted my addition of a fair use rationale and tag to the image. But, then again, I kinda have to agree with Anonymous101 here. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * . This is an icon, and its use in any article on a World Cup match is an illustration of what the teams are competing for. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind what I just said. Keep per Brian. I have restored my (rather lengthy) rationale to it. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * per brianmc. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is claimed to be fair use, which of the fair use whitelist criteria does it fall within? Adambro (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * time to update the fair use policy ? Anthere (talk)
 * So presumably we'll be getting the board to approve any such changes? Adambro (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. I asked Anthere to look at this because I felt this was not what was intended with the board resolution. I asked her to comment as a member of the community, and not as a board member. It may well be the case that we revise our fair use policy and ask the board to review it; we are always going to be sailing close to the wind on these issues. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Member of the community? Hardly. Seems Anthere has called by to support your position after you sought her opinion. Whilst of course I appreciate this probably wasn't the motivation to speaking to her it doesn't look very good to see a member of the board parachute in voting keep just when you ask for her opinion. Only recently did she state that we "should not consider board members above the policies and guidelines". Presumably that also applies here. Considering she has voted "keep" without providing a reason we can treat this as having little value also taking into her account her lack of activity. Adambro (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no contradiction in the position I have taken. I was seeking common sense, I did not ask Anthere to cast a vote. I interpret her comment as, "if the policy doesn't allow it, then the policy is wrong". This is a message a variety of Wikinewsies have been putting across for quite some time. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Seems like basic fair use to me. No big deal certainly. Will I ask the board to approve such a change ? I am not sure what you mean here, I see not really how such a use is non consistant with our current policies. But I presume it is a matter of interpretation of the policy... Anthere (talk)
 * If you think Florence simply cast a vote at Brian's request, then obviously you don't know Florence very well, and I'd take back an insinuation that she acts on other people's demands. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks ;-) Anthere (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

 * , per . Cirt (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very funny. Adambro (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * it is tagged as a logo, yet it is a photograph of the trophy. If we need to illustrate the trophy, we can use this Image:FIFA World Cup.svg. Now I don't know too much about the trophy/cup itself, but is it not on display somewhere where a free photo could be taken? Further, it's use in the articles (did anyone look at them) is as a silly little (50px) addendum at the bottom right for most of them. Rather useless. Image:World Cup 2006 logo.png is much more appropriate (and already in many of the articles). --SVTCobra 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This image is a free photo taken of the cup at an event, iirc... exactly what you suggest SVTCobra. -  Amgine | t 15:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately SVTCobra, any photograph which has as its primary subject this trophy will also be a derivative work. See the page on Commons for a better explanation than I can ever write. Adambro (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is something that should be challenged. If people can't assert protection over their likeness and may be photographed in public, why should such a right be extended to an inanimate bit of tin covered in gold foil? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That deriv stuff is really just lame. Becuase it is a picture of the trophy by someone. If its NOT copyrighted, And I or and average person took the photo, then its whatever they want the license to be. If I go and take a picture of the Stanley Cup, then I have whatever right I want to license it as such, even CC. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, Adambro is simply wrong in this instance. The image is of the trademarked FIFA cup, and therefore images/reproductions of it may not be sold. There is *no* specific protection of the non-trade use of such likenesses however. (e.g. you could build a house as a replica and live in it, but you couldn't *sell* the house, or charge for coming to see it/rent it out, or in any other way realize a return for it being a replica.) None of which justifies its presence here; it just removes the rational for requesting the deletion. -  Amgine | t 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the actual Cup itself trademarked and copyrighted, though? If so, it unfortunately has to be remove, keep otherwise. How does the Stanley Cup in this image hold up compared? rootology (T ) 03:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In response to Amgine's comments, you seem to be confirming that the CC-BY-2.5 license is invalid as I've suggested if commerical use is prohibited. Therefore this image has to be used on Wikinews under fair use as it is tagged at the moment although it most certainly isn't a logo and I see no evidence that it is a trademark either. It does however remain a derivative work. Adambro (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Rootology: I've requested clarification from FIFA as to the trademarked status of the actual cup; in every image/title of the cup on their website it is "(TM))"ed, and they go to pains to point out that winners of the cup receive a facsimile of the cup while FIFA retains all rights to the original object (in part because Brazil - deservedly - was given the previous cup in perpetuity.) I do not have a statement from a lawyer, yet, indicating it is trademarked, but I have every reason to believe such is the case. I am not aware of the status of Lord Stanley's Cup, but in the USA at least it would likely have at least unregistered mark rights.
 * Response to Adambro: So long as a mark is used to refer to the brand or owner of the mark, even in trade use (for example in a news article in a commercial paper,) it is legal and the cc-by license would be applicable to the photo itself, which would be copyrightable. On the other hand, if the image were being sold, for example as stock imagery, it might not be legal as it could be a trademark infringement. And, incidentally, even so the image should be copyrightable. In a simpler words: taking a picture of the cup at an event in which it is publicly displayed is fine if used to refer to FIFA or the cup; sell that image as stock footage without a release from the trademark owner and you might be infringing. -  Amgine | t 05:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I find it ridiculous that an photo I took of whatever it might be, of a cup, trophy, whatever, is not MY photo to do with as I please. If I took that photo of the cup, regardless of where it was at, I should be able to own ALL rights to that photo. Trademark or not, if they display it in a public forum, where your are ALLOWED to take pictures of it, then its my photo and no one can say to me I cannot license it as I choose. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, you're right DragonFire1024. But, in certain circumstances - such as when you are required to sign a waiver of rights as part of gaining your event press pass in which you give up the right to publish or sell your photos except in a news venue - FIFA would have some control over what you do with your images. So it's *possible* this image is not correctly cc-by, but extremely unlikely, and even so still qualifies as Fair Use under the WN:FU logos. -  Amgine | t 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on now DragonFire1024, I've already linked to the explanation of the concept of a derivative work twice at least, well just for your benefit here it is again. Please take the time to read and understand this important concept. It is most definetly not the case that you can do what you wish with a photograph you have taken. This isn't a Commons or WMF policy it is copyright law, so if you have any issues with it then raise it with the US government.

 * Amgine's comments as to in what circumstances a photograph you have taken might not be yours to do as you wish don't address the issue of derivative works. The trophy, unless there is evidence to the contrary, is no a logo or a trademark, although it is a creative work so any subsequent work which has it as its main element will be not free for the creator to do as they wish. Therefore the photograph of the trophy is not available under CC-BY even if the photographer has agreed to release it under this license. The suggestion that we can use this under fair use as logo is also questionable since as I've noted, it isn't a logo. Of course the community could try to find some way to allow the inclusion of this image by way of changing our policies but until then we work by the current rules under which I see no way in which we can use this image. Adambro (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that the above discussion indicates that the community would be more than happy to have the project guidelines changed so we didn't have to keep deleting stuff and having these disruptive discussions. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also want to say that we are not commons. I really, in this case don't care what Commons says about an image NOT on their site. As far as I am concerned, in this case, I don't care what commons has to say about a deriv. Again this is a photo someone took and licensed it as they wanted, which is their right. If commons doesn't like that, then too bad. And no one has yet provide proof this is a deriv. I know Amgine is trying, but beyond that I see no reason to continue this argument. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This really is getting boring. Of course we aren't Commons and I haven't suggested this to be the case. I've highlighted the Commons page because it provides a good explanation of the concept of derivative works but you can read about it on Wikipedia or no doubt in US laws. I would disagree that there isn't evidence that this is a derivative work, go and read the Commons page and if you don't like what you read there then go somewhere else and learn about it, don't just plead ignorance. You clearly don't understand the concept of derivative works so instead of continuing your misinformed argument that a photo you've taken is yours to do as you wish, go and learn about the issue. Adambro (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Adambro: I have never seen a copyright symbol placed anywhere near the FIFA World Cup, yet I have seen (tm). To be a derivative work the original work must be copyrighted and copyrightable. Please prove to us that such is the case, and perhaps this argument might receive more consideration. -  Amgine | t 17:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * :Everything is copyrighted unless otherwise specified. Anonymous101  17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, actually, that's not true. Functionality, design, and many other things are not copyrightable. Read trademark. -  Amgine | t 17:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the item's copyrightability, which is not necessarily given as per Amgine, it isn't the Wikimedia Foundation which has said that you can't use copyrighted emblems to illustrate their related subjects. Rather, the WMF has only established that non-free works are only to be used where they are legal and essential to the informative value of the work, and where they couldn't be replaced with a freely licensed work. Iff the trophy is indeed a copyrightable work, then there really isn't a replacement: Any non-derivative alternative would be a fraud for the purpose of illustrating the trophy. This is both my understanding and Anthere's and I don't believe there is much of a genuine dispute over the WMF licensing policy allowing use of images like this in the appropriate contexts... If Wikinews policy is somewhat too restrictive to allow this, and the contributors here feel that its important then it might be reasonable to tweak the policy some. I'd be glad to help.

What concerns me most here is a pattern of argument and behavior which I've seen in the past on English WP as well: Someone, often someone who supports abandoning all restrictions on non-free works, picking the most obnoxious corner case possible, then they argue that it's not permitted (even if it may well be) and ultimately people argue that because this one strawman burns easily that the whole policy needs to be ditched. It's a fallacious line of argument. And to claim that policy makes you behave disruptively? Oh please, is time to transwiki Ignore all rules over to WikiNews?

At the top we start with a corner case which other projects seem to have no issues allowing and continue on to Brian McNeil arguing "News needs to be timely. For this reason I believe Wikinews should be permitted to have fair use of pictures of living people. Can't get a free replacement in the week the article is on the front page? Tough." which sounds an awful lot like justification for taking the press photography from competing news sources, an activity which would be clearly illegal and of questionable ethics to even those who don't think highly of copyright law. Lets be real, we're talking about a trophy image up for deletion here, It's time for people to put down their agendas and correctly handle this particular issue the best we can. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I am most certainly not arguing we claim fair use on images from competing news agencies, and you are seriously misrepresenting my viewpoint to claim such. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. But whom exactly is Wikinews going to most frequently take such images from? The obvious non-free sources of stock headshots are companies which make a substantial portion of their income from selling their works to publications such as Wikinews. The only source I can think not failing that test is non-freely licensed publicity photos release by the person or their agent(s), .. okay, but if thats what you're talking about then you should probably be saying "WN should allow non-free publicity photos" rather than "WN should allow 'fair-use' photos. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

String theory proven wrong?
Very similar to Man in Winter Haven, Florida claims to have found reason for gravity and You are not a zero ! and again The article is about a some person inventing a theory of everything. And again, none of the listed sources are credible and relivant to the article. (Note:The user who created this was the IP who wrote the last two similar articles)Anonymous101 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to this, the latest source is two months old so it is not news. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Now the new source has been added, and as with the main source in all the recently deleted articles, it is describing Mark M. Fiorentino and from peswiki.com. Anonymous101 (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am wondering how - in words of one syllable - to explain that no wiki that any numpty can edit is not a credible source. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Wikinews has a special place in its heart for kooks and crackpots. It can be found here. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * this is not news. The most recent of the sources is May --SVTCobra 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per SVTCobra. Adambro (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * or otherwise Exterminate! --Brian McNeil / talk 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * and if one more of his nonsense articles is brought to DR, I say indef block. It's ridiculous; after three attempts he should know that these don't fly. Write about oil or Zimbabwe or something that's actual news. Mike Halterman (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed: no new revelations. Wikidsoup (talk) 19:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Write about oil or Zimbabwe or something that's actual news

be careful you might get what you wish for. This is ofcourse all about everything. I will try even more practical solutions.--Bugliosi Fan (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you even indef block a news article? Such Delusions of grandeur I have never before come across. --Bugliosi Fan (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can do anything I put my mind to (and with admin rights, its especially easy to prevent a page from being created. as a matter of fact there a three different methods to do just that.) Of course the author of said articles would probably get blocked first for not knowing when to quit before we'd prevent a specific article from being created. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the author has delusions of adequacy. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You are not a zero !
Very similar to Man in Winter Haven, Florida claims to have found reason for gravity and again The article is about a some person inventing a theory of everything. And again, none of the listed sources are credible. Anonymous101 (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * I enjoy watching TV such as Dr Who and Sliders, that certainly doesn't make me think it is true or something I should believe in. It is entertainment, and I am well aware that the creators and producers work hard to minimise the aspects that cause cognitive dissonance. Without reputable publications carrying this dreck you're so desperate to promote it is no different. I have a nice black fedora that I'd be happy to cut up and eat in sandwiches if one of these amateurs you think are the saviour of the world gets a Nobel prize within the next twelve months. Somehow I think at the end of that period I'll still be putting the hat on my head. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom Anonymous101 (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per . Cirt (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom. Adambro (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So now Mark M. Fiorentino is a philosopher? This guy is a hobbyist at best.--SVTCobra 17:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is the crackpot that keeps trying to get this pseudoscience published? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe his theory is soon going to be disproved when this article turns into nothing. --+Deprifry+ 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We'll see if this disappears. Until then, good luck on believing in your Dr. Who and Sliders universe. I wonder who is laughing the loudest?  Votes made by a new account which wrote the above article (not logged in) should not be counted
 * None of us are "believing" anything, except that this isn't news. I know I'm not laughing at all because I don't find these articles amusing in the slightest. Mike Halterman (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Man in Winter Haven, Florida claims to have found reason for gravity
This is nonsense, not one of the listed sources is credible. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
" The article is about a guy that claims to have found the biggest piece of his gravity puzzle "

The only verification that is needed from Wikinews is that

1) It is possible, not impossible, that relativity, same as superstring, can be appended just the same, to Super Relativity

2) This is not about the central cause of gravity, which should be referenced, this is only about the claim that some computational solution has been found by an ex IBM-engineer. (also see recent title modification) This claim is being referenced from quotes from the author, which are publicly available.

It is, as Brian McNeil will probably point out, not needed that Wikinews would be saying that a mathmatical solution is found.This is only about that one 'claim'. If this claim is indeed made by the author and the engineer in question, Wikinews will not be subject to any liability in the case that this claim will not be fullfilled in the near future. The liability in such lies at the sources which are cited.--83.134.75.215 22:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's see how Brian McNeil performs his fact-checking and news on current events reporting:--83.134.75.215 03:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

These are the sources specified:
 * sources removed by User:Adambro, someone, they are listed on the article and not needed as part of this discussion. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

 * I suppose I could email Stephen Hawking and ask him about this, I have his email address handy. Would a remove vote from Cambridge University stop the disruption of Wikinews and the editing of votes by established contributors? --Brian McNeil / talk 08:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't remember removing the list of sources. Are you sure that was me? I'm not sure we should give much value to any votes from anyone who isn't an established contributor even if they are Stephen Hawking, I don't think we need to, we can deal with this perfectly well ourselves. Adambro (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I struck your name from my comment. The page was a mess and the IP address promoting this has hacked DR about so much, removing votes and spouting off that it was difficult to tell who did what without actually spending hours reviewing every edit. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

See also similar issues at article also created by -- You are not a zero !. Cirt (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * To publish a story about a claim to have found the cause of gravity without independent verification would leave the credibility of Wikinews in serious question. This story seems to refer to recent claims at http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity that Fiorentino has "found the theory of everything", until the paper which he says "will explain all of your questions" is published and independently verified it wouldn't be appropriate for us to publish a story on such a claim. Adambro (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A paper which is claimed will not be published for months. It seems more likely it will be shot down in flames by respected academics and Wikinews would be left looking stupid for publishing something which - for all we know - is being rabidly promoted by the author. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * as nom. Despite use of PDF format by some, none of the sources look credible. This is fringe science. The IP address responsible has been involved on the topic on Wikipedia and appears to have simply migrated here due to OR being allowed. My patience was exhausted on the talk page, not one credible peer-reviewed source was offered, and if there is any meat to this story it should be brought back when it has been properly peer-reviewed and is not "hey man!" speculation. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

 * None of the sources specified are legitimate.Gopher65talk 22:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous users cannot vote in deletion requests
 * Publishing unvetted scientific theories proposed by hobbyists is not what Wikinews should be doing. It would open the door for a vast array of pseudo-scientific theories. We recently had an attempt to publish a theory by a Turkish man who had "discovered" the location of the Holy Grail. Curiously, he too is a software engineer. --SVTCobra 14:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per above comments Anonymous101 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This thing by some guy actually has fans. In any case we're not talking about unicorns. We're talking about Einstein and Hendrik Lorentz.--83.134.75.215 02:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * this is exactly why these sources need to be burning your eyelids. The turkish man had no fans.

Have you ever read a biography of Stephen Hawking. He even himself finds it crazy that the world are so interested in his matmatical abilities. In any case this has nothing to do with his virtual particles (another word for "a lie", look it up) and his 7 extra dimensions. He is not so well-versed in relativity anyway. You can look that up also.

On the other hand if you have contact information for some big relativists you are happy to provide one so we can maybe perform an expert interview within collaboration??? --83.134.75.215 02:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:Neopaganism
No articles, only one or two possibles in the archive. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * Various templates that were edited to include this will also need reverted should it be deleted. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * as nom --Ilikepie2221 (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * per nom Anonymous101 (talk)
 * we are not in need of further religious sub-categories. This one is new and should be removed. It can be recreated if need ever arises. --SVTCobra 01:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


text:
Man to face court after axe attack in Australia

July 1, 2008

A 69-year-old man who allegedly killed his wife, two grand children and injured his daughter, who is a New South Wales police officer in Cowra, New South Wales, will face Deniliquin Local Court after being arrested at a motel in Hay, New South Wales and charged with three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

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


text:
User talk:220.234.243.140

--SVTCobra 01:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:220.234.243.140


text:
User:Senseless Act of Beauty

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ~ Anne Herbert

title: User:Senseless Act of Beauty


text:
User:Random Kindness

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ~ Anne Herbert

title: User:Random Kindness


text:
User talk:Random Kindness

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ~ Anne Herbert

title: User talk:Random Kindness


text:
User talk:76.64.153.167

Hello, !

This is Wikinews, a free news source. Wikinews is an experiment in citizen journalism, not an encyclopedia. You may be confusing us with our sister project Wikipedia. Your encyclopedic addition to Wikinews was deleted. Please add it to Wikipedia if it is relevant there. We would be happy to welcome you as a contributor to Wikinews! (→ Zachary ) 03:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:76.64.153.167


text:
User talk:Senseless Act of Beauty

Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty. ~ Anne Herbert

title: User talk:Senseless Act of Beauty


title: User:Haha169


text:
Fear and loathing on the campaign trail, June 2008

July 1, 2008

June in the United States 2008 presidential election rolled by as a month with many similarities to the 2004 election. The Clintons were sent to the sidelines again, old faces took new roles and some took the same. An issue was raised that once again could drive conservatives to the Republicans and attacks on a candidate's military record was prominent in the press. But what changed the election forever was the death of Tim Russert who helped to cover everything that happened and shape America's perception of the candidates on the trail.

 * Republicans
 * The presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain exchanged barbs with Senator John Kerry over the history of conflict in Iraq. Kerry stated that McCain "doesn't understand Iraq, or the Middle East, or the war on terrorism." This was a change of heart for Kerry who as the Democratic nominee in 2004 considered McCain as a running mate. Retired General Wesley Clark said McCain's military record lacked command experience, and endorsed Obama. In 2004, Clark was among those who questioned Kerry's military record.
 * Many in the media likened the Supreme Court ruling that granted Habeas corpus rights to detainees in the Guantánamo Bay detention center to the influx of marriage licenses granted by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2004 as a rallying point for conservatives. Pundits stated that the future of the Supreme Court could be an important issue on the minds of voters that could drive the religious right to McCain.
 * John McCain released a new platform that called for more offshore drilling of oil off the coasts of Florida and California. The plan hoped to increase supply of oil to reduce the price of gasoline for the American consumer and encourage energy independence. The plan was widely heralded by conservatives some of whom have called for drilling in ANWR despite McCain's opposition. Obama responded to the plan by stating that McCain's solution would only help in the long run.

 * Democrats
 * The final three presidential primaries were held. Hillary Clinton won in Puerto Rico and South Dakota but Barack Obama won in Montana. Obama secured the Democratic nomination following the primaries when a stream of superdelegates came out to support Obama. Hillary conceded the race a few days later and named herself as the best choice to be Obama's running mate.
 * As the nomination was secured for Obama the media speculated about a spirited discussion on the Senate floor between Obama and Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Lieberman was the Democratic Vice presidential nominee in 2000 but left the party in 2006 after a senatorial primary defeat. He has endorsed John McCain in the 2008 presidential election.
 * Obama was also in the media when two of his campaign volunteers refused to allow two women wearing headscarves to sit in the front row of an Obama campaign event. The move was characterized in the media as an attempt to prevent the candidate from being associated with Muslims in light of false rumors circulating that Obama is secretly a Muslim.
 * The leader of the Congressional Black Caucus Representative Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Michigan announced that former Senators Sam Nunn and John Edwards' names were forwarded by the caucus to a team on the Obama campaign dealing with selecting a vice-presidential nominee.

 * Third parties
 * Independent candidate Ralph Nader proclaimed in an interview that despite no coverage of his campaign, he was at 6% in Associated Press opinion polls against John McCain and Barack Obama. He actually stood at 3% in the most recent Associated Press poll. The campaign acknowledged the mistake and clarified that it was instead a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll that placed Nader at 6%.
 * With the green party national convention slated for July 10-14, Cynthia McKinney leads all candidates with 291.5 delegate votes of the 419 needed to secure the nomination. Despite not being a candidate for the Green Party nomination, Ralph Nader is in second place with 137 and Kent Mesplay is in third with 28.5 delegates.
 * Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr and Ralph Nader each received some media attention by appearing on Sunday morning talk shows at the end of June. Barr appeared on Fox News Sunday where he defended his run against criticism that he could hurt John McCain in the general election and stated that his campaign would hit full gear after the Fourth of July holiday.

Editor's note
Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail... is a monthly article about the campaign events during the past month. The title is based on the series of articles written by journalist Hunter S. Thompson and compiled into a publication entitled Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72.


text:
Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2008/26

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

Last Updated: July 1, 2008

{This week saw Robert Mugabe claim victory in the Zimbabwe election when his opponent withdrew due to violence. Mugabe claims victory in all Harare constituencies. How many are there? - 21 - 24 + 26 - 31
 * type=""}
 * See Mugabe claims 'sweeping victory' of Zimbawe election

{A helicopter crash in South America saw which country's Interior Minister killed? - Mexico - Argentina + Guatemala - Chile
 * type=""}
 * See Guatemalan minister killed in helicopter crash

{A by-election forced by Boris Johnston becoming mayor of London was won by which candidate? -David Cameron +John Howell -Richard McKenzie -Ben Bradshaw
 * type=""}
 * See Gordon Brown's troubled first year

 * Now you've finished the quiz, why don't you post your score on the talk page

title: Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2008/26


text:
User:The Pattern

The highest of generalizations is the synergetic integration of truth and love. R. Buckminster Fuller in Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking (1975), Truth and Love: Linear and Embracing 1005.56

title: User:The Pattern


text:
User talk:The Pattern

A pattern has an integrity independent of the medium by virtue of which you have received the information that it exists. Each of the chemical elements is a pattern integrity. Each individual is a pattern integrity. The pattern integrity of the human individual is evolutionary and not static. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller in Synergetics: Explorations in the Geometry of Thinking (1975), Pattern Integrity 505.201
 * And there I thought the username had something to do with The Pattern. In any case, welcome! --Brian McNeil / talk 10:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * hello is the standard welcome, might want to take a peek at that and some of the links in it. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:The Pattern


text:
Comments:2008-09 UEFA Champions League: FC Porto kicked out of Champions League

good and about time

FC Porto kicked out of Champions League
People are quick on pointing finger when somethibg goes wrong. What they seem to forget is that F.C. Porto was banned from the Champions League without having a proper investigation made by FIFA. Once the case was investigated, F.C. Porto had all it's banneds removed. F.C. Porto was then clear of any charges and people that made the complaint to Champions League, obviously Benfica & Vitoria de Guimaraes who are rivals from Porto and saw the oportunity to attack F.C. Porto and having a place on the Champions League, had then to pay a fine to Porto for immorals rumors and damaged created to Porto image. So, what I'm trying to say is that it should be added to this page that F.C. Porto was wrong convicted and all the charges were dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.224.21 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


text:
Ulysses spacecraft retires after 17 year mission

July 1, 2008 The Ulysses spacecraft has been retired from service today, following a successful 17-year mission. The probe was launched aboard Space Shuttle Discovery, in October 1990. Following separation from Discovery, Ulysses was boosted into a Heliocentric orbit by an Inertial Upper Stage, and a Payload Assist Module.

Ulysses was a joint venture between the European Space Agency (ESA), and the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Its primary mission was to study the Sun. It made several significant discoveries, including that the density of dust particles in the solar wind was over 30 times what scientists had expected, and that the solar magnetic field was weaker, and more complex, than expected.

Over the last few years, the spacecraft has started to show its age, and several major systems have failed. When one of the high-band communications antenna was shut down to conserve power, technicians were unable to restart it, and from January onwards, the low-band antenna had to be used to relay all data to and from the probe. When the main power system started to fail, the decision was taken to retire the spacecraft before its propellant froze, making it completely inoperable.

Ulysses operated for over three times its design life. It was originally planned to survive for five years, and make a single orbit of the Sun. Its seventeen year mission duration made it one of the oldest spacecraft in service at the time of its retirment, along with the Hubble Space Telescope, which was launched just six months earlier, the Voyager probes, and the much older Pioneer Solar probes. It was also one of a handful of spacecraft to use a nuclear radioisotope thermoelectric generator to generate power.


text:
User talk:87.170.240.115

Gphone article
Sure, it's difficult for me because I'm not a native English user although it took place in USA & Australia. Brock contact... 11:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:87.170.240.115


text:
User:Llynolf

user

title: User:Llynolf


text:
Man kills five police officers in Shanghai

July 1, 2008

Five police officers were killed when a man attacked a police station in the Zhabei District in Shanghai, China.

Authorities report that a 28-year-old man with the surname Yang attacked a security guard at 9:40 am CST (01:40 UTC), started a fire outside the building and then entered and attacked officers with a knife. In addition to the injured security guard and the five officers who died at the hospital, four additional officers were injured. A witness with the surname Yi told Xinhua News Agency that some had chest injuries, as well as bloodied faces.

Police state that the attacker is an unemployed man from Beijing who was seeking revenge after he was investigated last year for allegedly stealing bicycles. He is currently detained at the station.

Shanghai is the largest city in China, in terms of population, and is a major business, finance, and trade center. The Zhabei District near central Shanghai has a population of over 800,000 and is a hub for business and education.

Authorities are investigating how the man was able to start a fire outside the station, before causing the deaths and injuries, without being arrested quickly.


text:
Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080701

1 July

title: Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080701


text:
Half a million złoty vanish from the bank account of Lech Wałęsa

July 1, 2008 According to Polish radio station, RMF FM, almost half a million Polish złoty (almost US$ 235,000) vanished from the bank account of Lech Wałęsa, a former President of Poland and the original leader of Solidarność (Solidarity). The case is already under investigation by the public prosecutor in Gdańsk.

The radio station identified the suspect as a former employee of Millennium Bank and the son of a former co-worker of Wałęsa. The Prokuratura alleges that Michał L. stole about 870,000 złoty (about US$408,000) from two bank accounts, one of which belongs to Wałęsa. The bank has already returned all the money.

Lech Wałęsa downplayed the situation. "I have all the money I had. I can show you I haven't lost even a grosz", he said in a interview with RMF FM.


text:
Truck carrying 12 million bees overturns in New Brunswick

July 1, 2008 A truck on the Trans-Canada Highway in New Brunswick, Canada, carrying 12 million bees has overturned. The truck was carrying 330 crates of bees when it tipped on a ramp in Saint-Léonard. The bees were used to help pollinate blueberries, and were heading back to Ontario.

The accident happened in the morning hours. Bee experts were called in to control the bees, and they were helped by the rain as bees dislike it, with the bees staying close to the truck. However, by midday, the sun came out and the bees became much more agitated. The beekeepers had to douse them with smoke, while firefighters attempted to hose the bees down to try to get them back near the truck.

There were no serious injuries from the incident, but some reporters at the scene got stung repeatedly. Anyone with an allergy to bees has been advised to stay at least 200 metres away from the scene.

The highway was first reduced to three lanes from four, before being completely closed, to prevent curious onlookers from being endangered by the swarms of bees angered and agitated by the incident.

This accident was the first of its kind in New Brunswick.


text:
Category:Language templates

Templates for identifying non-English sources.

de:Kategorie:Sprachkürzel-Vorlage es:Categoría:Wikinoticias:Plantillas de idioma fa:رده:الگوهای زبان fr:Catégorie:Modèle d'indication de langue ru:Категория:Шаблоны:Указание языка для ссылок

title: Category:Language templates


text:
Comments:Truck carrying 12 million bees overturns in New Brunswick

 * Chris Farley* BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!! */Chris Farley* (oh come on, you had to be expecting this) Fephisto (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest you buzz off? :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 15:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Dang... how many puns can you make on this story..? [[Image:Smile.png|15 px]] Maxim (talk)  16:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Doubtless local media were abuzz with the story. :D --Brian McNeil / talk 08:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The highway broke out in hives. Ral315 (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can these puns bee any lamer? Animum 02:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * AUGHH!!!#@!$@$ Maxim (talk)  02:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

wiki news is not a good site
this is a stupid but interesting story hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha --Jawwad (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

Definitely a first
RE: This accident was the first of its kind in New Brunswick.

I'm not surprised. I suspect this is a first in human history.

71.96.131.101 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.kmbc.com/news/2286651/detail.html 24.56.51.114 23:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong: http://www.topix.com/state/ca/2008/03/bees-swarm-in-ca-after-truck-flips-over

 * Well okay, I stand corrected. But it's definitely not something that happens every day.

 * 71.96.131.101 04:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

lolz
lolz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.62.43.202 (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

hahahaha


text:
Counter-terrorism agents search home in suburban Chicago, Illinois

July 1, 2008 Monday morning, around 11:30 a.m. CDT (UTC-5) a home in Chicago suburb, Lake in the Hills, Illinois, was raided. The FBI Counterterrorism Division conducted the search of the house on the 5700 block of McKenzie Drive, while local police, hazmat team, bomb squad, and fire department were all on the scene.

Edward Bachner—who lives in the house with wife, Rebecca—was arrested earlier in the day in Algonquin, where he purchased a "small quantity" of tetrodotoxin (TTX) from an undercover agent.

The FBI says the sting operation began when Bachner tried to buy 95 milligrams of TTX over the Internet by falsely stating that he was a doctor conducting research. Alarmed at the large quantity, an employee contacted the FBI. In his order for TTX he called himself Edmond Backer of EB Strategic Research, both determined to be fake by the FBI.

Bachner was arraigned in federal court in Rockford and charged with possession of a toxin, a felony that can carry a prison sentence of up to ten years. It remains unclear why Bachner sought to acquire TTX.

Tetrodotoxin is found in nature, most famously in the pufferfish, but also other marine animals, who use it as a defensive weapon. As a toxin, TTX is extremely deadly to humans. Just over one-half of a milligram (0.000018 oz) can kill a person. This makes it more than 1000 times deadlier than cyanide.


text:
Talk:Fear and loathing on the campaign trail, June 2008

The tone is a bit informal, but it is well written and catches readers up on a lot of campaign developments that have slipped through the cracks of our election coverage. I don't know how I feel about stealing Hunter S. Thompson's title. Also, this is not exactly gonzo journalism. --SVTCobra 16:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the title of this article mean? What campaign trail? Where? --78.146.106.23 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ANWR wikipedia has nothing on ANWAR, its confusing. Do you mean ANWR? Artic National Wildlife Reserve?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.84.34 (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Misnested tags...
In the Editors's note, an attempt has been made to make it SMALL. SMALL is a span based tag, and so shouldn't be used to wrap a heading or pargraph breaks. SMALL in any event should also ideally be replaced with suitable CSS? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:Muro de Aguas

I'm a sysop and bureaucrat on the Spanish Wikipedia. You can contact me here.

title: User:Muro de Aguas


text:
Mugabe spokeperson tells critics to 'go hang'

July 1, 2008 George Charamba, a spokesperson for the widely criticized leader of Zimbabwe, has said that critics of the situation in the country should "go hang a thousand times".

At a press conference today Chambera was asked whether a national unity government, like that in Kenya, should be formed in Zimbabwe. He answered by saying that "we have our own history of evolving dialogue and resolving political impasses the Zimbabwean way. The Zimbabwean way, not the Kenyan way. Not at all."

Robert Mugabe was recently under a large amount of pressure to postpone the election after the main opposition candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, pulled out due to fears of violence. For example, Ban Ki-moon, secretary general of the United Nations, yesterday called for the election to be postponed. He said that he "strongly supports the statement of the Chairman of SADC (Southern African Development Community) that conditions do not exist for a run-off election to be held at this time and that they should be postponed."


text:
Libel case against Wikimedia Foundation dismissed

July 1, 2008 Wikinews has confirmed through several sources that a lawsuit filed against the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organization of the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, by the 'Barbara Bauer Literacy Agency,' has been dismissed. As a result of the associated conflict, edits pertaining to Bauer on Wikipedia were deleted and, following the commencement of legal proceedings, Wikinews exclusively obtained the offending texts and edits.

Judge Jamie S. Perri dismissed the case citing the 1996, promoting free speech over the Internet. The act protects the provider of interactive computer services from liability for publishing content provided by another.

At the start of the court action, Wikimedia asked the court to dismiss the case. "Wikimedia asks the Court to dismiss the claims against it, with prejudice. The claims against Wikimedia are frivolous because they are barred as a matter of law by the, "Section 230" or the "CDA"), by the First Amendment, and by New Jersey law. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia written by its users, the content of which can be created, edited, or removed by anyone.

The claims arise from statements made on numerous Internet websites, which Plaintiffs assert describe them as being among the "20 Worst Literary Agents" and having "no...significant track record of sales to commercial (advance paying) published" states the motion filed in Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County," said the organization.

Before the case started, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) issued a press release that defends against a suit Bauer filed against Wikimedia which states that contributors on Wikipedia posted "libel statements" against Bauer that labeled her as number three on a list of twenty people grouped as the "worst" publishing agents, and included allegations that she had "no documented sales" through her firm. Complaints filed against her and her firm state that Bauer had a bad record when dealing with "commercial publishers,", and questioning her practice of, "charge[ing] in advance of making a sale, against the generally-accepted industry practice."

In March of 2007, Wikimedia was named in a lawsuit filed in Superior Court of, New Jersey, along with 20 other defendants which included operators of the Absolute Write web site and the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America who authored the list.

Wikinews has learned that Bauer's Wikipedia article was deleted some time during the course of the proceedings, along with the edit history of her article and its talk page as a "courtesy." During the investigation, Wikinews found that all edits to her article, and edits to pages requesting it to be deleted were deleted by Wikipedia administrator MaxSem.

Wikinews has also exclusively obtained all the edits affiliated with Bauer's article, which was sourced accurately, the deletion requests along with the edit history of all pages related to the discussion about Bauer's article. Fearing retribution on Wikipedia by other administrators and users, the source who provided Wikinews with the edit information wishes to remain anonymous.

The deleted Wikipedia article on Bauer stated that she claims "to have placed books with a number of well-known commercial publishers, but does not provide specific details of the books in question. In 2006, due to the number of complaints they receive, Writer Beware (part of the writers' organization) listed Bauer's agency as one of the twenty worst literary agencies." Bauer's article was started on May 25, 2006 but was not deleted until March 21, 2008 by Wikipedia administrator and Wikimedia office employee Cary Bass, who was not able to comment on the incident. It underwent two requests to be deleted, with the second one passing, and it was subsequently deleted. It had first been deleted on March 25, 2007 by "Doc Glasgow", an administrator, amid allegations that the information presented in the article was "a bloody disgrace, full of 'allegations of who said what on message boards. No mainstream media interest." It was later restored on March 26 to undergo a "deletion review." It was then deleted just under one year later after an extensive discussion.

Barbara Bauer was shown to have threatened a number of website hosts who reproduced the "Top 20 Worst Agents" list, or referred to her inclusion in the list; her complaints apparently prompted a brief takedown of the AbsoluteWrite.com site.

One blog even states that Bauer attempted to get people fired from their jobs, after allegedly posting information online that was in any way connected to the Top 20 worst agents.

"Barbara Bauer has been running around the Internet lately threatening people who've posted information about her fee-charging, non-manuscript-selling ways, including people who've linked to the Twenty Worst list. She has threatened legal action; she has even attempted to get people fired," states Victoria Strauss on accrispin.blogspot.com.

The EFF, along with attorneys at Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, are defending Wikimedia submitting a motion to dismiss the suit against the Foundation. The Foundation says that the of the United States  and New Jersey law protect the contributors from any legal action.

Specifically, Section 230 of the act states, "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected."

Bauer claims that her agency informed Wikimedia of the false allegations, and requested that they be removed. She also claimed that Wikimedia refused to remove the information when requested. Bauer further states that the contributors involved with her Wikipedia article "conspired to defame Plaintiffs and interfere with their prospective economic advantage."

Mike Godwin, attorney for the Foundation states that the point of Wikipedia is to return the knowledge it provides, to a worldwide culture.

"We provide a platform through Wikipedia for smart citizens to give their knowledge back to a larger culture. Our ability to offer citizens that platform is what's at stake in this case," said attorney representing the Foundation, Mike Godwin in a EFF press release on May 2, 2008.

Despite the claim of freedom of speech, Wikinews has learned that on the same day, Godwin requested that the edits and the article on Wikipedia relating to Bauer, be deleted by a community action. Godwin also stated that the Foundation has "filed court papers in which we stated that the article is no longer available."

"I've been trying to keep 'Office actions' to a minimum (partly in reaction to some fairly heavy-handed WP:OFFICE stuff in the past), and it would be helpful to be able to say that any given action was taken by the community, not by the Foundation," said Godwin on Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard on May 2, the same day of the EFF's press release. 'Office actions' are changes directly authorized by the Foundation which are made to content on any of the Wikimedia projects. The edits are made by staff members working for the Foundation's head office located in San Francisco, California. Edits of this nature are generally "removals of questionable or illegal Wikimedia content following complaints," according to Wikipedia's policy on 'Office Actions.'

A few minutes after, MaxSem, a Wikipedia administrator, deleted the edits related to the deletion request of Bauer's article as a "courtesy" stating that there would be "legal problems" if the edits were not deleted.

Wikinews originally intended to publish an article at the start of the court case, although it was deleted from the article by Wikinews administrator Brian McNeil, who said that it was deleted "per consultation with Mike Godwin" as the posting of any material relating to Bauer, on Wikimedia sites, could be considered contempt of court. The deleted copy of this article was then leaked to Wikileaks, who released a press release saying that the Wikimedia Foundation censored Wikinews. At the time of this  reported that "Wikinews - like its sister site, Wikipedia - bills itself as a place without bias. Ostensibly, it's a democratic news source that never answers to a higher power. But that's just a setup for the latest act in the world's greatest online farce." The Register has a long history of denigrating Wikimedia projects.


text:
User talk:208.62.2.181

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. , welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

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 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! Anonymous101 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2008 (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 an article 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
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:208.62.2.181


text:
Comments:Wikinews interviews Kent Mesplay, Green Party presidential candidate

Great Interview!

I hate to break it to you Kent, but it is a 2 party system. It's nice how optimistic you are about your chances, but I don't really think you could win. When you see the news, which is what everyone watches, all you see is left and right, no center (except for the occasional Ralph Nader mock). Unless one campaign was consumed with scandal and another with some sort of crappy candidate, a 3rd party candidater is merely expressing his freedom of speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.76.122 (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Kent Mesplay, Green Party presidential candidate
With unstoppable integrity, one can vote one's conscience and heal the world. With the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo_phenomenon, we can develop each others' integrity until everyone learns to vote their conscience. With mindfulness meditation, one can experience enough personal security to vote one's conscience. With ranked-choice voting (or instant runoff voting), you can vote both your conscience and the lesser evil. One-person one-vote democracy is mob-rule. Watching Democrats and Republicans activates mirror neurons in the brain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron, causing monkey-see-monkey-do. Lemmings follow their newscasters into eternal war and devastation. Dr. Mesplay, what do you think about taxing violence products at 100% to pay the costs of using violence products? That would make violent movie production and weapons manufacturing nonprofit endeavors. That would compensate victims of violence to restore victims to wholeness. The US would still have the strongest defense in the world, but out of the kindness of the volunteers' hearts, not because of profit motive. How would that affect stockpiling weapons and selling them to other countries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.239.2.55 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


text:
User:Slysplace

Slysplace On Wikipedia

title: User:Slysplace


text:
User talk:Slysplace

Slysplace On Wikipedia

title: User talk:Slysplace


text:
Wikinews interviews Molossian president Kevin Baugh on his country's recent intermicronational summit

July 1, 2008 This past weekend, an important event in the intermicronational community took place. Prince Christopher I and Princess Erin, the Royal Family of the Principality of Vikesland, a micronation located in Alberta, arrived in Espera, the capital city of the Republic of Molossia, another micronation located near Reno, Nevada, for what would be the two countries' first ever formal summit.

The Republic of Molossia, which declared its independence in 1998, has played an unparalleled role in the development of small nations. At only three years old, the Principality of Vikesland is a relative newcomer to the world of micronations. However, despite its age, Vikesland seeks to become a major power in the intermicronational community. The summit was successful in solidifying the two countries' already strong friendship.

Luckily, President Baugh was available to speak with. In addition to the summit, he told of his plans for the revitalization of the League of Small Nations, a nearly defunct organization devoted to the prosperity of all land-claiming micronations, and the current state of the intermicronational community. The entire interview can be read below.

Interview
 Briefly summarize the events of the summit.

 * President Baugh: Prince Christopher and Princess Erin arrived on Friday morning, June 27th, 2008. We held a brief ceremony in Republic Square, wherein I awarded Prince Christopher the Order of the Mustang and he awarded me the Order of Vikesland. After that, I took the Royal Family on a tour of Molossia and we spent the rest of the day discussing micronational matters in Norton Park. On Saturday the 28th, we all traveled to Donner Lake in the Sierras, and took part in Joint Naval Maneuvers, followed by a tour of Lake Tahoe. On Sunday, June 29th, Prince Christopher and I took part in a Joint Rocket Project, in which we each launched a rocket representative of our respective nations. The summit and visit of the Vikeslandic Royal family was a great success, and great deal of fun as well.

Tell us about how the summit with the Royal Family will have an impact on the intermicronational community.

 * President Baugh: I think that this summit, along with that in April with Grand Duke Paul of Greifenberg, shows that the ties between micronations are strong. We all share a similar vision, although with different perspectives. I hope that these two summits demonstrate how people from different walks of life and from across the world can come together, exchange ideas and thereby contribute the growth of their nations and communities.

'''This is the second time this year that the leader of another micronation has officially visited the Republic of Molossia. Will Molossia be hosting anymore summits or state visits in the near future?'''

 * President Baugh: I don't actually have any planned at this point, but one never knows what the future will bring. Each day affords new opportunities and new ideas, and my door is always open to any micronationalist and indeed any person interested in micronationlism.

What is the current state of the intermicronational community?

 * President Baugh: I think that micronationalism has had its up and downs over the years, it is not quite as active as it was around the turn of the century. Activity has certainly leveled off, but there are still many, many micronations out there, with new ones being founded every day. I believe that right now there are more serious nation-projects going now than there ever have been, and I look forward to seeing what might be coming next.

How is the revitalization of the League of Small Nations, a nearly defunct organization dedicated to the prosperity of all land claiming micronations, coming along?

 * President Baugh: It is proceeding well, I think. An online meeting is tentatively scheduled for August or September, to ratify the Charter. After that, the serious business of advancing micronationalism will begin, with a proposed micronational postal union, and possibly joint support of a charity, in the name of the League. As demonstrated by the two summits Molossia has hosted this year, many positive things can take place when micronationalists come together, and I think the League of Small Nations is just the venue to make these things happen.