text:
Wikinews talk:Content guide

Rewrite
Simeon just totally re-wrote this page, making it over twice as long and making it very hard to read and understand. The existing version is a tight, clear easy-to-understand document, and is much superior, so I reverted. Dan100 (Talk) 11:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It is much clearer. And certainly much clearer than the original would be if extended to include all the information that it should be presenting.

 * I am/was trying to rationalise the entire set of introductory documents, as I myself have been finding it almost impossible to find most of what we are supposed to be using here at wikinews.

 * Please view and review, and decide on what should be done, but if noone objects I will resume what I was doing with this page, since I think Dan100 does not really understand what I did, I don't think s/he took the time to read the page before eliminating it, let alone have the patience to let me put through changes to other pages.

 * Yes, incremental changes can be good. But this has become a mess, and needed quite a lot more content. There was a lot of things on inappropriate pages, including this one, and consolidating the lot into a rational, designed introduction and reference was needed. I have years of experience in writing these types of documents, as well as in news writing, and I wrote half of the original content on the pages in question.

 * It's all very well to put policy suggestions on pages that most people never find because the intro to wikinews is so bad, and then complain that people are making changes that haven't been approved on the policy pages that noone ever reads. Fact is, most of these pages weren't written that way in the first place, and I shudder to think what would be here if they had been. I think a lot of policy discussion pages.

 * Please critique my changes on the merit of content, not on merit of what procedure they result from, and not on merit of how large the change is or who made it. And please when doing so, look at the structure of the site, and try to think how a new user would encounter it.

 * And also remember that I have already made many change to make this easier, now. This page is the last major piece in the puzzle, I will leave it for now, I must sleep. Wiki is wiki - things can be easily reverted, so we should not be so frightened to have things change, if the changes are well intedned, and well considered. It would be better to build on my changes, than revert them. That is wiki, not holding to tradition when tradition is broken.

 * And if somehow my changes are blocked, please make suitable amendments to fix the page. - Simeon 16:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * How is making it more than twice as long making it clearer?! Look at this way: we have no problems with the contents of articles. That suggests that the existing page was doing its job, and doing it well. There is no need nor consensus for you to suddenly start re-writing everything. Dan100 (Talk) 08:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Who is 'we' Dan? How did you get their opinions? I see no-one else making changes or reversions except you. This site was a mess. I am working to make it cleaner. You are reverting my progress in this.
 * This is a wiki. Changes are proposed on the pages themselves. Consensus is attained if people do not revert the cahnges. Reverting on the basis of 'no consensus' is like me censoring you asking me for permission to talk. 'No, you may not talk, because you don't have permission.'

 * Do we need to propose proposed policy? Or do we simply propose policy? - Simeon 08:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you claim that the site is in a mess?! Have you ever sat down with people who've never used a wiki before and asked them to find their way around the site, then watch where they go, and see what they think? I have; both over IM and actually in person.

 * And how can you honestly claim that doubling the length of the page is 'clearer'?!

 * The 'we' I used is in 'we the site'. People are not writing articles that don't belong here, and do not fall foul of the original, brief and easy-to-read content guide. So why ruin it? Dan100 (Talk) 15:35, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New policies
Simeon introduced the following new policies:

Wikinews does not want defamation or degrading opinions
Definitely do not defame or degrade. Do not prejudice any court case. Anything published on the internet may be considered 'published in' other countries, and those countries may have different laws to where you live, so be careful — you could still get yourself into trouble even if you can argue the case locally.

Following this should not be too difficult if you stick carefully to the ideas of NPOV, global audience, attribution and referencing so mar mentioned .. but in fact it is. Writing about news without defaming can be quite tricky due to the subtle ways that courts interpret your words.

A start is to make sure that what you write about someone is true. This is not a defence by itself everywhere, and as we have seen, you need to be able to defend your writings everywhere.

As well as truth, you need to show that your writing is in the public interest.

You must also write carefully, and without malice.

The fact that you are reporting what someone else said, in the case of reporting a quote, is not an excuse, so be careful not to repeat a defamation made by someone else.

Note that even if someone claims to be guilty of an offence, you should not then assume they are right. Always assume innocence until a court of law hands down a guilty verdict.

If in doubt, leave out all identifying information about the people you are writing about, if you think the story needs to be told, and might be defamatory. Don't identify juveniles (generally people under the age of 18) who are charged with an offence, and in most cases even if found guilty their identity should be protected.

Some resources, since this is quite a complex issue, are

Wikinews does not want to degrade, or incite violence, racism, sexism, or nationalism
What it says. Again, laws in many countries can be used against Wikinews or its contributors, and we generally like to be polite to each other and our readers.

Avoid obscenity that is not strictly necessary to tell the story, and then. Remember that our readership is not limited to any particular group or class, and we do not want to offend some subset of readers.

Be careful that your own prejudices don't lead you to report in a way that others may interpret as prejudiced. Go back to 'never assume'.

Nationalism is not generally illegal, but people often find it offensive, especially if they are not members of the particular nation. Since Wikinews is global in outlook and in readership, do your best to avoid nationalistic views, or to correctly attribute them and provide balancing comments from people of contrary views.

Wikinews does not want to promote self-interests of the wikinews contributors
Generally, don't write about something that you have a direct interest in, where you or someone close to you might gain or lose from the outcome, or from publicity. If you do have an interest in something where you might gain or lose, then see if you can find someone else to write about it, and they may decide to use you as a source.

Wikinews does not want to infringe copyright or other licenses or laws
Again, legal requirements as well as politeness and good relations demand that we police Wikinews and write without infringing licenses, copyrights, laws of secrecy and so on.

Follow the guide above to referencing and attributing and you are well on your way.

News reporting is protected in many countries as an important right that balances, to some degree, intellectual property laws such as copyright. You may even be forgiven by some if you report official secrets, though. The key is to only include as much as is necessary to tell the news, to attribute your source, and to only do so if there is a public benefit.

If in doubt, leave it out. There are often alternative sources for material if you can't get permission.

Some resources on this topic appear below.

 * Fair use
 * Fair dealing

I have a number of problems with these, all stemming from the fact that we don't allow opinion and only trade in reference facts, so these are all essentially unescce un-needed. We don't need to be filling our guidelines with legalese.

In particular (but not exclusively):

We're not going to defame or degrade, because we're not making stuff up. If we use a source that is making stuff up (unlikely, I don't think anyone's going to be quoting the British Daily Mail in the near future), then, well, whoops. We can't do better than our sources.

Public interest - not our concern. We report facts. If that's not in someone's interests, so be it.

Claiming someone is guilty of an offense before a court's verdict - again, something we'd never do, because it wouldn't be a fact until the court has returned its verdict.

Identifying people - we can if we want, unless I assume an American or Florida court (I understand they have jurisdiction over this site due to the servers being located there) forbades it.

Nationalism, racism etc - if it's a fact and part of reporting, we say it. We don't pretend things do not happen. Of course, npov dictates that we must present the alternative view (if there is one).

Self-interest etc - again, we don't allow advertising, just factual reporting. So it can't be an issue.

Copyright - it's stressed all over the site (like in the text below the edit field) that we can't reproduce copyrighted material. Those warning are sufficient; we do not need more.

Fin. Thoughts please Dan100 (Talk) 20:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historical Content Thought
The line "News stories focus on a single current event or phenomenon" prevents us from adding historical information to the wiki. We should consider changing this to "News stories focus on a single event or phenomenon, and have an accurate dateline". This would fix a few small problems, such as preventing the deletion of a few almost done old articles. It would also the inclusion of historical information, although we should probably have a diffrent dateline and a seperate portal for such stories. Thoughts? Nyarlathotep 05:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * The dateline discussion has happened a number of times, iirc. I seem to recall the general resolution of the discussions being to prefer the date the story is submitted, or published, rather than date of the event. Wikinews reports on events or phenomenon, and an element of that reporting should be to accurately define the time at which the event or phenomenon occurs. I don't know how that would be worded though. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't really going for any particular meaning of the dateline. I was suggesting that old stories be permitted, as long as the dateline is accurate. For the most part, the "change" is that old stories which suddenly pop back into develop shouldn't suddenly be deleted for no longer being news, so long as their dateline remains accurate. Infact, we might even tolerate such insanity as going back & adding a wikinews story about the first atomic bomb (see above link), but it would need to be tagged as a "historical addition". Nyarlathotep 06:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Agreed, this is my original proposal, as well as the proposal at metawiki. Wikinews has failed, and will fail, as a poor man's google news.  If we are able to find old news stories, why not write an article on them?  It's easy enough to change the date to be correct for when the event actually happened.  And it will still appear in the recent changes and searches/categories for peer review.  They make excellent sources for wikipedia articles.
 * Anyone who is against allowing historical news stories must be in favor of deleting all articles older than a certain time (2 months for example). Otherwise it is hypocritical.  --MateoP 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, you'll find somebody who feels that wikinews' old articles should accurately represent how wikinews presented the news of the day, but I think this critisism is completely handled by merely tagging such articles as historical additions. Among other cultural benifits, inclusionism of historical articles will bring more people with diffrent writing styles to wikinews, which we could use. Anyway, I think that maybe the real question is: how should the categories and templates work?

I think historical articles should have a seperate portal from the main page, and developing historical articles should not appear on the main page. Currently, the Template:Developing_stories is computed as Category:Disputed plus not Category :Published minus Category:Deletion_requests, Category:Brief, and Category:Local_only; so we can just subtract Category:Historical too. For the historical portal page itself, we need a developing stories box, which lists only articles in Category:Historical (and either Category:Disputed or not Category:Published), but the majority of the page should be dedicated to showing off good articles. One idea is to list all articles from "this day in history" which are included in Category:Historical or Category:Featured, eventually maybe just restricting this to Category:Featured once we get too many historical articles. A one-time bot could crawl the history of the main page templates to identify all past lead & featured articles, and add Category:Featured to them.

I think this can be made to work fairly cleanly, although a few parts of the site will need some minor adjustments. We may find, for example, that historical articles require a more wikipedia like deletion protocol. Anyway, once we've thought through the changes, we can take a proposal to the Water Cooler. I don't think people will mind if we actually implement the system, as the changes shouldn't inconvenience normal operations. Nyarlathotep 03:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Here are two arguments why this is not a good idea for Wikinews:
 * Wikinews is not encyclopedic. Writing articles about historical events is what an encyclopedia does. These articles would need to meet a different set of criteria than a news source because all historical data may be accessed, and the event must be put into context including background and related information.
 * Wikinews article archives are one of the primary goals of the Wikinews project: to create and maintain a resource which may be linked to as primary source documents which will not be restricted in access and therefore provide permanent online citations.
 * -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

How is the seccond argument against historical articles. To me it seems for it? Bawolff ☺☻ 04:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * He is worried that a crackpot who claims to be an eye witness to say the Kennedy assassination, but is completely nuts, will be able to post his crap here as original reporting, its just a diffrent way of stating his first critisism. I understand the critisism, but I've also just see a number of minor flaws in wikinews which would be corrected by not being so quite so myopic about the moment.  Anyway, its worth talking about.  Nyarlathotep 04:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Sort of. Because we all know much more about what was found in Iraq after the invasion, it is difficult to write an article about the Iraq war which is not informed by the Bush administration's failure to locate weapons of mass destruction. But if we write an article with a dateline of during the invasion or before it, when that information was not known, the article is extremely likely to contain implications or information which would not have been known at the time, and therefore if cited as a primary source will be misinformation. Our archives should contain the mistakes and misinformation we knew at the time, such as when we (and many other news sources) were hoaxed about Mr. Bush jr. going to Australia. And it should contain the limitations of the knowledge we had at the time, like the progression of articles last year as we learned the extent of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. But it should not contain, as primary documents, articles which purport to be about a specific time but were written long after the event with access to a much wider array of data and information. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Alright, I hadn't quite thought of it in those terms, which are more clarifying than the crackpot thing. Nyarlathotep 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this news?
I have an account of a public free-food and speech night put on by a local shop to raise awareness of homelessness and hunger. Interesting community leaders were there, and I've got photos. Is this news? 220.245.245.185 08:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeliness
Wikinews normally deletes unpublished articles that are about events that happened (or became public knowledge) more than 2 to 3 days ago.

I can't find that reflected in this guide. Perhaps it should be. See Talk:Pfizer accused of using charity for profit.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks Brian. --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

More on timeliness
What does Wikinews do that the regular media don't do? Is this for un- or under-reported stories (like "Project Censored" or "Indymedia")? Or is this the place to break new stories? I guess I don't understand the point of writing a story and then referencing it to mainstream news stories covering the same topic. How is Wikinews better than the regular media regarding regular news?

For example, I was going to add a story about an illegal immigrant from Ghana who was killed while being deported from Japan. The story was covered in "The Economist" and English language "Japan Times" but was mostly overlooked, apparently conspicuously so in Japan. A Google news search only brings up the one Economist article, which is here: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16113280. The Japan Times story comes up on a Google web search here: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20100413a3.html I haven't done a Japanese language search. The Economist story is dated May 13th, but the incident occurred in April. It's not breaking news, so apparently not an appropriate topic. It's not noteworthy enough for a stand alone Wikipedia article. Maybe "Human rights in Japan"? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 * As you point out, different citizen journalism sites have different criteria for "news". If you have done your own research, such as interviews, this is original reporting and is very welcome here, and the consensus view on "what is news" and "timeliness" are not so strict in that case.  However, if you wish to synthesize information from other news outlets, then look for a more recent story.  If an under-reported story has caught your attention, and you can't manage any original reporting (even by e-mail or phone) then look for recent developments to make it newsworthy again, such as a recent statement from the police or the APFS.
 * As far as I know, Wikinews doesn't have a magazine or analysis category, for taking a longer or broader view on the news. I don't know if it has been discussed in the past, but as you say,  Wikipedia and Indymedia often accept submissions like this.
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 * What Wikinews brings to the table, even for synthesis articles, is neutral point of view. It's hard to get people excited about neutrality, but it really is a very big deal.  Take FOX News as a bellwether for the direction things are likely to slide in, and watch as print news outlets with serious journalistic ethics wither and die, and it should become clear that the ability of ordinary citizens to find neutral reporting of the news anywhere in the future is threatened.  Yes, Wikinews ought to do better on timeliness.  A common prediction here on that issue is that our reviewing times will improve as the project reaches critical mass, so that there are always plenty of reviewers around.  (I have a few ideas of my own that I save up for future proposal here, but for now I mostly put my energy into improving our implementation of the way we do things now.)  --Pi zero (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

how
how i submit a information for my website.??

www.henry classifieds.co

 * You don't. Wikinews does not carry any advertising - which is why I've edited the URL. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

News creation time limit
Is the purpose of Wikinews to be a complete record of news and not just to include news by chance from a certain time limit, which omits news that may not happen to be written on Wikinews, within that time limit, even though that news may have happened and is notable?

With the current last point in the guideline of what news is, it states; "Ensure your reporting is timely and the story is at most a week old with sources in the last 2–3 days. Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news." The definition of the word "news" in this statement seems to be an absolute perspective. Retrospectively how is past news any less significant than today's news? Some might say the past is equally relevant to the present or perhaps Wikinews should contain no history at all? How is this absolute perspective inviting to new contributors and productive to a more complete record of news?

My view is that Wikinews has cast a small net, of limited time for contributors to create a more comprehensive resource of information, restricting it to only breaking news. This doesn't address sercumstaces when news at the time doesn't have wide exposure, may not be first heard about by Wikinews contributors which is subsequently encountered and is notable.

Yes ideally all contributions should be "new" and "recent" as news happens, written as soon as possible. The contradiction is that news is often reoccurring, on-going or may be referred to at a later date. A wiki is unique in the sense that the content can evolve, whether the content predates the subject or not.

"Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news." Is the emphasis of news, more towards rumours and speculation, not facts? The approach of a news style of writing, is different to an encyclopaedia, though both follow a "neutral point of view" and "verifiability" guidelines, ultimately resulting in accurate content. Is Wikinews missing accurate content?

News articles are defined in guidelines as required to be verifiable. By restricting the creation of news article subject after a week or 2–3 days, consequently Wikinews will be incomplete, lacking historic records of events. Is a news report any less of a report simply because of the timing of the report? Isn't content more important than immediacy?

I would rephrase the criteria as: "Once news is written it will always be a record of events. There is recent news and there is also the historic record. Exceptions of the time limit for retrospective news, may be permitted for accurate content of apparent significance."

RW Marloe (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 * It is not possible to recreate neutrally at a later date what a news story would have looked like at the time; you might as well write an article about the Battle of Cannae as it would have been covered by Walter Cronkite (And that's the way it is). Such an effort might, in fact, be educational and therefore within the purview of the Wikimedia Foundation (I loved Liberty's Kids) — it might fit at Wikiversity or (less likely, but depending on how one set it up) Wikijunior.

 * Assuming you do not intend faux news, what you are asking for (under the unnecessarily elaborate name "comprehensive resource of information") is an encyclopedia. There is nothing wrong with wanting an encyclopedia, but Wikinews is not what you want: it is not an encyclopedia.  It would not make sense for Wikinews to try to be an encyclopedia, because that would be redundant: one of our esteemed sister projects is already doing that.  (Please note the WN:NOT item specifically stipulating Wikinews is not a dumping ground for failed Wikipedia articles.)  --Pi zero (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Tending largely to agree with Pi zero here; news, by its nature, must be new. How about concerning yourself less with the content guide, and helping us with some content? --Brian McNeil / talk 10:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes I understand and agree with some your points, staleness does set in after two to three days, not two to three years Template:Oldnews, I was merely explaining may thoughts about what the purview of the time limit is and what effects it may cause. There is already an exception to the time limit with original news Original reporting, it explains that exceptions are possible on the Template:Stale.

 * I reiterate that the limit can have adverse impacts to users that are still learning how to write news quickly on a Wiki. A limit also impacts the time needed to form a proportional perspective of complex news and comprehensive details that may require long explanation. The ability to submit unfinished news can be done, though the likelihood of passing a review and being published may be unlikely. News that is unfinished and hasn't been reviewed can always be edited and improved by other users, but only without it being prematurely deleted. RW Marloe (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Can't see the policy Socks dot Sox (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

 * Not sure what it is you can't see. Is this a technical problem?  --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Copyedit?
Maybe I am just not seeing things right, but is it really my imagination that this page needs some very basic copy-editting? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

Just to add a note: This Project page is very prominent since it is the very first link a editor new to wiki-news is most likely to click on because it is displayed on the top of Template:Welcome-body which is left on the talk page of every new arrival (I think?) Ottawahitech (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

 * What makes you think it needs a lot of copyediting? (Do keep in mind, we are not Wikipedia and do not follow the en.wp MOS.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixing old articles
flag This policy currently says "Only fix old articles that don't follow current style or content guidelines", yet our style guide says "Changes to the guide are not applied retroactively". I think "Only fix old articles that don't follow current content guidelines" would do. - Xbspiro (talk) 02:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for highlighting this. Your suggestion makes sense. I’ve marked this discussion as needing community attention. If nobody objects in the next week, feel free to make the change and linking to this discussion in the edit summary. --Green Giant (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ as suggested. [24Cr][talk] 13:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

title: Wikinews talk:Content guide


text:
Wikinews talk:Workspace/Archive1

Workspace
This morning I added - and then removed - a headline for Condoleeza Rice's apparently forthcoming appointment as Secretary of State. We have a story here on Colin Powell resigning and so this seemed like a natural followup. But then I visited the review page, and found a better story which covers both events together (which is natural).

I conclude that it is best if we do not have separate pages for articles in review versus articles under development, because it is too hard to check both pages. Better instead to have sections on this page and let people move things back and forth as needed. Jimbo Wales 12:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * All articles being worked on in one stage or another should be listed from the main Workspace. The categories listed there are meant to locate articles in an individual stage. This is important so we can systematically review articles which are close to publication.--Eloquence 13:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm. Well, I should think so, but Disney World launches revamped attractions is in review, and does not appear at all in the main Workspace, right?  Is that just an oversight? Jimbo Wales 16:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Yea. Articles are automatically added to the review category when they are tagged with . That one was not created from the workspace, so it doesn't show up there. Fixed now.--Eloquence

Health
I've added the category "Health". Hope no one minds, it seems reasonable enough. --119 18:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Thumbs up, Google News has it, so should we. --  user:zanimum

New Categories
I have created 2 news categories: Orphan Articles and Need Help in Article Workspace. Are they helpfull? Are they correct? Do some changes if you think it is worth. --carlosar Nov 18 22:50:20 UTC 2004

 * Orphan articles is already a special page (Special:Lonelypages). --Astronouth7303 02:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now listing articles by date and method of change
I have overhauled Workspace and if no one objects, I propose we list articles under the day's heading with the kind of change being made or service requested, making new posts to this page as changes are made, but not deleting old ones. Example format: And so on. See the edit box for a full list of suggested common descriptors.
 * Dev: Delta 4 Heavy rocket poised for maiden launch
 * NPOV: Delta 4 Heavy rocket poised for maiden launch
 * Review: Delta 4 Heavy rocket poised for maiden launch
 * Copyedit: Delta 4 Heavy rocket poised for maiden launch

If the article has been reviewed and can be considered closed, is it deleted from here? --Shana 21:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * yep :) Lyellin 21:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I thought we could say "Publish: Article" so if an article is in a contentious review it won't sneak by without objection. 119 22:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * the process we had been going by, which is how I responded to Shana with was taht the workspace had articles that needed to have work done. Once the work was done and the article was publishable, it was removed, and put on the appropiate pages. That way, we don't have a long list of already finished articles being held on here. Lyellin

I'm updating workspace to reflect the current status of the news. I agree in principle on not deleting the old status, but it'll take me thrice the work to check every article for the new status date (I have DSL with a decent bandwidth, but it is still too slow in opening the pages), while if I just take the current entry and update the status I can do it quickly using the Develop, In review and Reviewed categories. Maybe it'll help if the develop, review and reviewed boxes that show up on the news page have an explanation to the author saying that he/she should update the workspace when they change the status? Meanwhile, I'll finish up cleaning up the workspace using the old method so we can get started using the new one... Shana 13:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm seriously confused
I need some help figuring out the process for adding an article. I add the review tag, but it doesn't show up anywhere, but apparently in Template:Editor tasks, and of course "Recent Changes". The article apparently needs to be added manually to "Main Page" and "Article Workspace".

I'm kinda new, and I'm sure there is something in the process that I am missing that would streamline it. Can anyone help? jkrusky 03:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You add the review tag, but the article needs to be manually added to Template:Editor tasks and Workspace. Modifying the template will put it on the main page. currently, we have no other steps to streamline it- we are governed some by what the software can do. Lyellin 03:36, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks. jkrusky

Duplicate stories
Ok, so we have two stories about the ETA bombs on friday. One has passed review, the other had some discussion but it seems to have passed review also, though it is not marked. I'm rather %| of looking at one all day in the peer review, so what's to be done with them? Any ideas? Publish them both and that's that?
 * Merge and publish just one article. Carlosar 13:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Loss of functionality with Eloquence's changes
With Eloquence's effective elimination of the Workspace as a unique list and merging with a cut-down Editor_tasks, there is no longer any way to sort changes to articles by date and no way to log things such as NPOV disputes, requests for copyedit, etc. I think this is a serious mistake and makes collaboration harder. 119 05:31, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Status indications should, in my opinion, be exclusively handled through the category system. That is the only way for them to be easily maintainable as they are clearly on the article page itself and not on some separate page that needs to be updated and tracked alongside it. We cannot expect newbie editors to do the work of writing aricles and to understand many different complex processes. If you wish to update the Workspace page whenever an article changes state, then you can volunteer to do it, but in the past this information has been notoriously out of date. It's just not scalable this way.

 * The most important thing here is that we must make it easy to write articles and maintain the different pages. Currently it's way too difficult. We should use the features available to us, such as Special:Newpages and the category system, to streamline the editing process as much as possible. We need to centralize and simplify processes. One place to add/remove an article in development. One index page to add it to once it's out of development. That is also important to avoid duplicates. The rest should be done through software.--Eloquence

Logbook pointless?
I don't really see the point of the story logbook. I think a prominent link to Special:Newpages would serve the same purpose. Any objections to removing the logbook?--Eloquence 16:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the logbook should be removed: very few people use it, and it is redundant. I've removed it and added links to newpages as well as today's category. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Workspace, Newsroom, and Water Cooler - too many pages?
Between the three of them, they all duplicate each other to some extent. I feel that at least one needs to go and any unique functions of that page merged into the remaining two. Comments? Dan100 14:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well I've edited this page to make it specifically about writing articles, while linking to the newsroom for community matters. I feel seperating the two is a good idea. Dan100 16:49, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comprehensive text
Comprehensive text - what does that mean? That the article is good enough to go on Latest news and doesn't need more work? We need a key of some sort, I feel. Dan100 22:48, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I couldn't make head nor tail of it so went for 'being bold', and changed it so mature articles are removed from the workspace. Dan100 22:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed Editor Tasks!
Please don't hate me! I was just really confused about what to do where. My understanding is that the Workspace is for articles in development before going on Latest news. That's just what's left now. I wasn't quite sure what the purpose of Editor Tasks was. It probably should have its own page somewhere else. Dan100 22:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Workspace is the "central place for coordinating work on incomplete Wikinews articles." The stories in Editor tasks are incomplete stories and belong here. I re-added it to keep the page a "entralized collection. Please note the MAIN PAGE will probably be de-designed to remove editor tasks from it in the near future to allow for more stories. -- Davodd | Talk 09:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We can't have both the original Workspace layout and the Editor Tasks template here - it's just too confusing! Anyone arriving here for the first time won't know which one to edit - in fact he might give up trying to edit the ET template as it's not obvious how it works. Further, there's no good explanation of the purpose of the ET - it's not exactly for WIPs (although the first section might be), but the rest seems to be some sort of review system. That needs clarifying. Dan100 09:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I've added a section on the Water cooler under Proposals to discuss this further. Dan100 09:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The workspace section you are referring to is meant for articles which are already written but are in process of being improved by editors.... not new articles. ;-) -- Davodd | Talk 09:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like what you've done! Much better now. Thanks. Dan100 10:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Articles under review...'
I also removed that text as I have no idea what it means, and a far as I can see, there's no explanation. Dan100 09:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'Unpublished' and 'Published'
Davodd, I note that you removed 'unpublished' from the header of the first section. I was thinking of 'published' as in 'moved from the workspace to the main parts of Wikinews'. The other thing is that the header above ET says 'Published', which implies that stories were at one point 'unpublised'. Dan100
 * Following on from this I have seperated the purposes of the two sections somewhat. The first part is now only for articles being created, while ET is now the place for all copy-editing etc. Dan100 10:50, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New 'how-to' box
Isn't that conent already explained on the 'how to write an article' page? Dan100 11:04, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Change in template structure?
Am I crazy, or did the Workspace suddenly change? I can't get the link directly to the copy edit section anymore. Weird.

Unable to post to LATEST NEWS section!!
Ever since January 22, 2005, it seems that I cannot post my new articles to the Latest news section, BUT only the Developing stories section? And I discovered that somebody had made changes to the layout etc to Article workspace, right??????

 * SHOULD you undo your changes NOW????

King Ho Cheung, January 22, 2005

 * It seems okay now, but it takes around 5 minutes for the title of the new article to appear on the front page. Don't know what's causing such delay... King Ho Cheung 18:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is caused by the caching system of mediawiki. There is a way to speed up the process by adding a purge action to the url: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/?title=Main_page&action=purge This will purge the memory cache and build the page from scratch. (The cache is used to speed up the website, since other users in the next five minutes might want to see the main page the software just sends out a copy rather than building it each time.) - Amgine 18:15, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your information :) King Ho Cheung 18:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * You can click the "add story" link on the homepage to add to today's section of latest news. However there are issues with the recent changes to the latest news template.
 * Also: I fixed the workspace alignment issue.
 * Finally: you can easily sign talk posts with your username and current date by putting four tildes: ~ . -- IlyaHaykinson 01:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Big changes were made with no prior consultation nor explanation. I'm not happy. Dan100 (Talk) 10:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Big changes continue to be made without prior consultation, as has happened before, and will happen again. Contributors can learn new processes, or they can continue to break systems which cover multiple pages as you have just done again. I would like to point out that many of your changes are likewise troublesome, but were not reverted without giving them an opportunity to work.
 * If you wish to be in charge of making sure the Template:Editor tasks and Workspace are synchronised on ongoing basis, please leave things as they are. Otherwise, revert your reversions. - Amgine 16:34, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was more the lack of explanations and instructions that bugged me. It would be fine to change things if people knew why it had been done, and how they should now operate. After consultation and more thought, I decided to accept your changes. I then re-vamped the workspace (see below) to fully reflect the changes. Dan100 (Talk) 17:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New layout and instructions
I have re-designed the workspace to reflect the recent evolution of the way the site works, namely nested templates on the front page and the use of the developing stories template for article creation. This is to make it as easy as possible for new users to get to work, and also to attempt to ensure some consistency in the way the process operates. Dan100 (Talk) 17:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Explanation
Here's why I made the changes I did:

 * I removed the template as we are no longer adding links to new stories directly to the page - they're going to the developing stories template, so the edit page no-longer needs to be simple, as it's never viewed.
 * I changed the section header from 'new articles' to 'creating new articles' to be clearer for new users.
 * I used the old instructions from the box in the template to produce new instructions in that section. As it would be helpful to have the date on visible next to stories in the developing news template, I produced a small 'example' of what should be posted, whose date updated automatically. Hopefully people will realise this and simple copy and paste it.
 * In all, I changed relatively little here - just moved the the instructions from the template to the page itself.
 * In the next section, Open tasks on published services, I added the "do not edit red links" warning to give people writing a story from scratch the chance to write their first draft without getting an edit conflict.
 * I think I added the direct edit link, but that might have been there already.
 * That's it.

In all, all I did was make some relatively small changes to reflect the move away from creating new links on the WS to making them in the developing stories template. Dan100 (Talk) 19:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Section edit links
Will people please refrain from adding, thus removing the section edit links. They're very useful to allow quick-access to the various parts of the Editor's tasks template. Dan100 (Talk) 02:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I just added to Editor's tasks. However, before I did so, I added edit links to each section manually, so the result is the same. The crucial difference is that the automatic section edit links didn't let you edit text inside templates, while the links I added do. We could have just gotten rid of all the templates on the page, but as we grow, I expect that the various sections will be accessed a lot, which means that we want them to be editable independently, as they are now. Pingswept 00:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * One other thing I'd like to point to, however... the Latest news section should be separated more firmly from the Developing articles section; it is quite possible someone will accidentally create their new article from the archive page as it is currently arranged. (just my opinion, since I very nearly did it this morning.) - Amgine 01:59, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

title: Wikinews talk:Workspace/Archive1


text:
User:Simeon.A.Scott/Wikinews:Content guide

This page documents what criteria Wikinews articles should fullfil. Please help us to observe these criteria in all articles, whether you wrote them, or someone else did. For introductory information on working on Wikinews articles, see Workspace and the pages recommended there.

Checklist
Article here should comply with the following stipulations, which are treated in more detail under subsections below this list.

Wikinews articles should be

 * 1) News
 * 2) Collaborative
 * 3) Balanced
 * 4) Factual
 * 5) Referenced
 * 6) Written for a global audience

Wikinews articles should not

 * 1) Defame or prejudice
 * 2) Degrade, incite violence, racism, sexism, nationalism
 * 3) Promote a self-interest of the wikinews contributor
 * 4) Infringe copyright or other licenses or laws such as official secrets acts etc, unless legal protection is provided due to a public need to know

Wikinews wants News articles
Wikinews is for writing news stories, like those you read in the newspaper, or see on the television news.

News is new, and interesting to many people. News stories focus on a single current event or phenomenon.

Items of interest often include
 * controversy or conflict
 * novelty or innovation (both words simply mean 'newness', by the way)
 * things or people important to many
 * events which seem as if they will be an important influence on future events

Following a developing story
Don't try to follow the developing story by updating an existing article — write a new one.

Unlike Wikipedia, Wikinews is a site with stories that chronicle the events when they happen.

If you deem a topic very important — or if it keeps reappearing in the news — make an "In depth" page about it and link all the related articles.

Changing old articles
Changes to old articles which are desireable are fixing of typos, style or content problems; adding of further background information if the story doesn't explain its context well; or providing balance with information from the same point in time as the story, since often this cannot be found quickly enough to make the first publication of the article.

Wikinews wants articles written collaboratively
The whole point of Wikinews is to provide a collaborative environment where anyone who can write, can help write great news stories! Therefore articles cannot be written from a single or restricted point of view. We aim for Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

Please expect multiple contributors to each article, and be willing to work with others to incorporate their suggestions, although this does not always happen quickly or without pain. Also try to understand others suggestions, there may be valid reasons why your own contribution doesn't belong in a given article.

Write in a way that makes it clear to others where you are up to, and that leaves the article as close as possible to 'closed' at the end of any edit you make. Comment your changes appropriately, and use the Article flags.

Wikinews wants balanced articles
Like Wikipedia, and all worthy news publications, Wikinews aims to provide balanced coverage, and a fair hearing for all sides of any argument. In practice, it can be difficult to source information from all sides, especially as a news article is breaking, but please do your best.

Remember that Wikinews allows anyone to work on any article. This generally helps to develop NPOV. It also lets you off the hook somewhat, if you fail to provide balance due to lack of knowledge or time, but it is suggested that if this is the case, please use Article flags to warn readers that the article is not really finished, and to request other users to balance the article.

Wikinews wants factual articles
News is factual. Check facts for accuracy before you write them up. Be careful that you are not making assumptions, either about the facts, or about the reader's knowledge. If you are careful to write accurately, and attribute all your statements, then you will not have too many problems with this.

Opinions should be sourced from 'qualified sources', and the fact that those people express those opinions is the fact that is reported.

A qualified source is an organisation or someone who is taken seriously by the general public when commenting on a particular area of expertise.

Only report the most relevent, and important opinions expressed about the matter, from the most relevent, important sources, eg on law enforcement policy, the Commissioner of Police is better than a Police Constable.

Comment from 'ordinary' sources with an interest is also useful, but only against the context of what the 'important' sources said, or if the news event has wide-reaching consequences, and you source a number of such opinions.

Generally do not 'give airtime' to people who are pushing opinions that are overstated or of doubtful relevence in the context of the event you are reporting. Sometimes those people are news, because they have already given this opinion to many people, and it has an effect, but often they are hoping that you will spread their message for them.

Wikinews wants referenced articles
Please state at the end of each article references for all your source material, using the template, see Style guide for more information on how to cite sources.

Reference all facts that are not common knowledge to any graduate of highschool.

Try to use as source reputable online media, offline if necessary, or original reporting in Wikinews.

Try to track down the first source that makes a particular claim.

Attribute all quotes or statements to people, and for ones that are probably from exlusive interviews, mention the name of the publication where they are from. Complex articles with many sources may need more detailed referencing, you can use inline references.

Original reporting
Wikinews allows original reports if they are attributed to identifiable sources. For now, anonymous reporting is not allowed. Please see Original reporting for tips on writing material for Wikinews using interviews you conduct yourself, or your own eyewitness accounts.

Wikinews wants articles written for a global audience
Remember that anyone in the world could be reading your article. Please make sure to provide context for any information that may be specific to the location of the news story.

Make sure not to assume that people reading have the same opinion, or outlook, as you. They may not speak English as a first language, so aim to write for about an early high-school level of reading, and explain or link to Wikipedia or Wiktionary to explain any complex ideas.

Wikinews does not want defamation or degrading opinions
Definitely do not defame or degrade. Do not prejudice any court case. Anything published on the internet may be considered 'published in' other countries, and those countries may have different laws to where you live, so be careful — you could still get yourself into trouble even if you can argue the case locally.

Following this should not be too difficult if you stick carefully to the ideas of NPOV, global audience, attribution and referencing so mar mentioned .. but in fact it is. Writing about news without defaming can be quite tricky due to the subtle ways that courts interpret your words.

A start is to make sure that what you write about someone is true. This is not a defence by itself everywhere, and as we have seen, you need to be able to defend your writings everywhere.

As well as truth, you need to show that your writing is in the public interest.

You must also write carefully, and without malice.

The fact that you are reporting what someone else said, in the case of reporting a quote, is not an excuse, so be careful not to repeat a defamation made by someone else.

Note that even if someone claims to be guilty of an offence, you should not then assume they are right. Always assume innocence until a court of law hands down a guilty verdict.

If in doubt, leave out all identifying information about the people you are writing about, if you think the story needs to be told, and might be defamatory. Don't identify juveniles (generally people under the age of 18) who are charged with an offence, and in most cases even if found guilty their identity should be protected.

Some resources, since this is quite a complex issue, are

Wikinews does not want to degrade, or incite violence, racism, sexism, or nationalism
What it says. Again, laws in many countries can be used against Wikinews or its contributors, and we generally like to be polite to each other and our readers.

Avoid obscenity that is not strictly necessary to tell the story, and then. Remember that our readership is not limited to any particular group or class, and we do not want to offend some subset of readers.

Be careful that your own prejudices don't lead you to report in a way that others may interpret as prejudiced. Go back to 'never assume'.

Nationalism is not generally illegal, but people often find it offensive, especially if they are not members of the particular nation. Since Wikinews is global in outlook and in readership, do your best to avoid nationalistic views, or to correctly attribute them and provide balancing comments from people of contrary views.

Wikinews does not want to promote self-interests of the wikinews contributors
Generally, don't write about something that you have a direct interest in, where you or someone close to you might gain or lose from the outcome, or from publicity. If you do have an interest in something where you might gain or lose, then see if you can find someone else to write about it, and they may decide to use you as a source.

Wikinews does not want to infringe copyright or other licenses or laws
Again, legal requirements as well as politeness and good relations demand that we police Wikinews and write without infringing licenses, copyrights, laws of secrecy and so on.

Follow the guide above to referencing and attributing and you are well on your way.

News reporting is protected in many countries as an important right that balances, to some degree, intellectual property laws such as copyright. You may even be forgiven by some if you report official secrets, though. The key is to only include as much as is necessary to tell the news, to attribute your source, and to only do so if there is a public benefit.

If in doubt, leave it out. There are often alternative sources for material if you can't get permission.

Some resources on this topic appear below.

 * Fair use
 * Fair dealing


text:
User:Simeon.A.Scott/Wikinews:Introduction to Wikinews

Welcome to Wikinews, the free news source written by you! Everything you read here is written by volunteers just like yourself. As well as starting your own articles, you can edit any page you see — expand, fix spelling mistakes, correct facts, make policy suggestions, talk to other Wikinews contributors ... !

What else is special about Wikinews?
First and foremost, because anyone can contribute, and because the articles are written collaboratively for a global audience, they approach a neutral point of view.

Wikinews, like its big sister Wikipedia, is run and funded by volunteers donating their time and money, and has no advertising. Decisions are made collectively, and we like to negotiate. Discussion is encouraged, and there are plenty of people to learn from.

Everything that's done on the wiki can be undone, so it's very friendly to new users. The interface is designed to be easy to use, and easy to learn.

And our policy is to omit opinion and commentary in our articles — if you want to tell the world what you think, try blogging.

Where do I start?
Some essentials are needed by anyone who would like to work on articles. For one thing, you will need to know how to edit a page. This should be enough to be able to fix typos.

Secondly, if you want to do more than rearrange existing content, you need to write content that is suitable for Wikinews.

Articles that are published appear on the Main Page. You could start off by reading some of those, you may find errors that need fixing, and get an idea of what others are writing here.

Articles that people think need work appear at Workspace. This is also where new articles start.

Communicating with other Wikinews users
A number of facilities exist in order to communicate your intentions, suggestions and questions, with other Wikinews users.

 * the 'Talk' page of each page here at wikinews - click on the 'Discussion' link at the top of any article to go to its associated Talk page. By editing the Talk page, you can leave comments for other readers. Each user who has edited Wikinews before also has a Talk page for their username, where you can leave comments for that user.

 * Article flags which invite people to work on certain aspects of an article, or inform them about the state of the article, including a number of common problems which arise.

 * The Water cooler is the place to discuss general Wikinews issues.

 * Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel #wikinews and #wikinews-en on irc://irc.freenode.net . You will not even need an irc client, if you use the web interface provided.

Guide to creating a new article
Not sure how to create a new article?

Like to know the whole process? Or just interested in improving your work?

If you would like to know all of the possible steps in creating a new article, from beginning to end, see Writing an article.

Still confused?
If you're lost, try Contents.

Not quite sure if this Wikinews is for you? Or if you are doing the right thing?

See Mission statement, What Wikinews is and What Wikinews is not.


text:
Wikinews:Introduction

 * Volunteer editors write Wikinews and the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation hosts it.
 * Lost? For a site map, see Contents.
 * For editing help (how to use templates, how to make stuff look a certain way on the page, etc.), see Help:Contents.
 * For instructions on how to write an article, also see Writing an article.

Everything you read here is written by volunteers just like yourself. As well as starting your own articles, you can edit many pages — expand articles, fix spelling mistakes, correct facts, make policy suggestions, talk to other Wikinews contributors, and more…

What is special about Wikinews?
Anyone can contribute, and articles are written collaboratively for a global audience. We strive at all times to meet the policy of writing and reporting from a neutral point of view, ensuring our reporting is as fair as possible.

Furthermore, everything we write is cited, to maintain the highest standards of reliability.

Our policy is to omit opinion and commentary in our articles — if you want to tell the world what you think, try blogging.

Wikinews, like its big sister Wikipedia, is run and funded by volunteers donating their time and money, and has no advertising. Decisions are made collectively, and we like to negotiate. Discussion is encouraged, and there are plenty of people around to learn from.

Everything that's done on the wiki can be undone, so it's very friendly to new users. The interface is designed to be easy to use and easy to learn.

What Wikinews articles are
Wikinews has two main types of article:
 * The most common is the synthesis article. These draw on media reports from many other sources (always fully cited). It is rare for other media stories to contain all the available facts, so we provide a more rounded and detailed report. We can also strip out any bias and present a neutral point of view.

 * The other type of articles is original reporting. These are first-hand news reports written by Wikinews contributors. You can read more about this type of reporting at Original reporting.

What exactly Wikinews covers is explained by the content guide. Some examples are available at Featured articles.

Learn to edit MediaWiki
Some essentials are needed by anyone who would like to work on articles. For one thing, you will need to know how to edit a page. However, don't concern yourself too much with that. There are plenty of people willing to help you if you need help in that area. You can also try our wiki sandbox, which lets you try the code however you want.

What you can edit
In virtually all circumstances, anyone can edit an article not yet published (see the Review section below) and talk pages (see the Talk pages section below). After an article is published, you frequently cannot edit it if you don't have an account or your account is less than four days old, and, at least a week after publication (ordinarily), articles are archived so only administrators can edit them. You can request an edit be made using editprotected on the talk page. Note the archive conventions' restrictions on post-publish edits.

Start reading, start writing
Published articles appear on the Main Page. You could start off by reading some of those: you might find errors to correct, and get an idea of what others are writing here.

Articles which need work appear at Newsroom. You can find out how to write new articles here.

Review
All articles must go through independent review prior to the "publish" stage.

Wikinews' Style guide
Like most publications, Wikinews has its own style guide, which helps its contributors make their efforts blend in harmony to produce a finished look. The style guide also contains a lot of tips and grammar guides. But you can pick up 99% of what you need to know just by looking at existing articles.

Research using Wikinews' Research desk
If you need to research something for an article, you'll find plenty of resources on our Research Desk. There is also a on Wikipedia that organises news sources by region.

Communicating with other Wikinews users
A number of facilities exist in order to communicate your intentions, suggestions and questions, with other Wikinews users.

Talk pages
Click on the 'Collaboration' link at the top of any article to go to its associated talk page. By editing the Talk page, you can leave comments for other readers. Each user who has edited Wikinews before also has a Talk page for their username, where you can leave comments for that user.

Article flags
Article flags invite people to work on certain aspects of an article or inform them about the state of the article, including a number of common problems which arise.

Water cooler
The Water cooler is the place to discuss general Wikinews issues.

Live chat via IRC
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel #wikinews and #wikinews-en on irc://irc.libera.chat. You will not even need an IRC client if you use the.

Still confused?
If you're lost, try Contents.

Not quite sure if Wikinews is for you? Or if you are doing the right thing?

Try these:
 * Mission statement
 * What Wikinews is
 * What Wikinews is not
 * Policies and guidelines

Or ask someone at the Wikinews Welcommittee!

Disputes
Disputes are inevitable. We are all very friendly here at Wikinews, but it is a little chaotic, and no one can see the whole of Wikinews all at once. We are not mind-readers, and as nifty as Wikinews is, even this is not a perfect communication medium.

Please be patient and polite when you have a dispute.

Tips for resolving serious disputes are at Dispute resolution.

Reviewers and administrators
Wikinews, like all wikis, tries to be non-hierarchical, to the extent possible for the tasks we perform. Individual differences between users are more recognized here than on many wikis, with attention paid to individual accumulated reputations. Some technical tasks have to be reserved for trusted users, and for these we have reviewers and admins.

title: Wikinews:Introduction


text:
Melbourne's tram-driving teen faces more charges

April 21, 2005 The 15-year-old Australian boy charged on Sunday night related to the alleged theft of a Tram, faces another nine charges over prior incidents, bringing the total to 18 charges. The new allegations relate to theft of a bus, attempted theft of a train, and another incident with a tram.

On Monday he was also charged over an incident, in which a tram was allegedly stolen from Southbank on Friday.

The boy was arrested yesterday at his Sunshine home and bailed to appear in Melbourne Children's Court in June, over the nine new charges.

On Monday, Yarra Trams spokesperson Colin Tyrus told The Age that there had been "a mystery collision in the depot on April 10".

"After what happened on Sunday we obviously reported all of that to the police and we are continuing to assist them with their inquiries," Mr Tyrus said.

Police allege he drove a vehicle in the Southbank yard and hit another tram, on April 10, causing $2000 damage.

And on April 9, it is alleged, he jumped a fence at a Footscray bus depot, found some keys and drove a bus around the yard. Later, it is believed he tried unsuccessfully to start a diesel train at a rail yard in North Melbourne, and then absconded carrying the keys.


text:
Category:Transport

ar:تصنيف:نقل ca:Categoria:Transport cs:Kategorie:Doprava de:Kategorie:Verkehr el:Κατηγορία:Μεταφορές es:Categoría:Transporte eo:Kategorio:Transporto fa:رده:حمل و نقل fr:Catégorie:Transports ko:분류:교통 it:Categoria:Trasporti he:קטגוריה:תחבורה ja:カテゴリ:交通 pl:Kategoria:Transport pt:Categoria:Transporte ro:Categorie:Transport ru:Категория:Транспорт sr:Категорија:Саобраћај fi:Luokka:Liikenne tr:Kategori:Ulaşım uk:Категорія:Транспорт zh:Category:交通

title: Category:Transport


text:
New England Senators argue over imported pharmaceuticals

April 21, 2005

In an unusually contentious hearing, Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) argued the pros and cons of allowing the importation of drugs from countries where there are good safety controls and prices that are 50 to 70 percent below U.S. prices.

Laws to legalize that practice, which has found favor with 77 percent of Americans in a poll released on Wednesday, are under attack by the American drug makers and their friends in Congress.

Sen. Gregg, his face turning pink with anger at times, accused Senator Snowe of throwing away 100 years of federal law by advocating the bill.

Snowe replied that the bill would bring foreign drugs, mainly from Canada, Europe and other countries--provided those drugs already have FDA approval--under the aegis of the FDA. Former FDA commissioner David Kessler agreed during testimony, and said that legalizing prescription imports from Canada and elsewhere would make for safer prescriptions for U.S. consumers.

Snowe said, “We send men and women up to space every day, and we can’t figure this out?”

Senator David Vitter, R-La, weighed in on Snowe’s side, “Safety is a huge reason we should pass legislation like this,” he said.

Reporters said the two jousted back and forth for quite a while, not allowing each other to finish an answer, each accusing the other of failing to answer.

“I am answering your question,” Snowe said at one point. “You don’t like the answer.”

Opponents say that curbing drug prices could discourage research into new products. Snowe countered that drug development in the United States totals $32 billion, compared to $26 billion in Europe.

The two feuding lawmakers live on northern New England’s Canadian border and are under pressure from senior citizen’s groups to allow American consumers to import drugs at cheaper costs.


text:
User talk:83.103.181.182

Thanks for fixing the vandalism :) Dan100 (Talk) 15:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:83.103.181.182


text:
Fatal dog mauling owner pleads “Not Guilty”

April 21, 2005

Appearing before Judge William Ledbetter Jr. in Spotsylvania County Circuit Court, the fatal dog mauling defendant Deanna Large plead not guilty Wednesday to charges of involuntary manslaughter and three misdemeanor counts of letting a dangerous dog run at large.

Large is the alleged owner of three pit bulls that attacked and killed an 82-year-old neighbor as she walked her dog in the front yard of her home. Police responding to the incident on March 8, shot two of the dogs at the scene and later euthanized the third. No one in Virginia has ever been convicted of an involuntary manslaughter charge in connection with their ownership of dogs. The only similar case, in the late 1960’s in Amherst County, was dismissed.

The commonwealth’s prosecuting attorney, William F. Neely said, “That’s a prosecutor’s job whenever you see the law being flagrantly broken is to try and push the envelope,” explaining the seriousness of charges against Large who faces 13 years in prison. Further adding that, “The real issues are legal and not factual, I think. If the commonwealth prevails in getting this case to stand up on the law, it may possibly even turn into a guilty plea.”

Large, who is free on a US$10,000 bond, asked for a jury trial which was set for August 16.

During her March 24 arraignment, to Judge Ledbetter she answered “Yes sir," on whether she would hire her own defense lawyer. The judge appointed public defender Eugene Frost to represent Large when she did not appear with a lawyer.


text:
Breakthrough in talks between Philippine government, Muslim rebels

April 21, 2005

The Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) announced substantial points of agreement this Thursday on key issues related to Ancestral Domain that may bring peace to the troubled Mindanao region in the months ahead.

The announcement came as a result of a three-day conference this week held in Malaysia in the town of Port Dickinson. "I would like to thank Malaysian Prime Minster Abdullah Badawi not only for leading the ceasefire process but for facilitating the substantive negotiations", stated GRP President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Malaysia has led an International Monitoring Team attempting to support and enforce the cease-fire both sides agreed to in 1997, although violence has occasionally flared up, even in the days leading up to the meeting.

"Since we have been talking peace to the Philippine government, this is the first time we have touched on the substantive agenda of the peace process," said the chief negotiator for MILF, Mohaqher Iqbal.

The areas of concern in this week's talks relate to the Ancestral Domain portion of the Tripoli Agreement of June 22, 2001. Ancestral domain refers to territories claimed to be inhabited by the ancestors of indigenous peoples, and was discussed by the two groups in terms of concept, territory, governance, and resources. Security and Rehabilitative Aspects of this and other agreements have already been discussed and are currently being implemented.

"We have had some detailed consensus points [concerning the land issue]," said Silvestre Afable Jr., chief negotiator for GRP. "We agreed that we have bridged 60 or 70 percent of the issue in the area of ancestral domain." However, the spokesmen declined to cite the specific areas of agreement.

The predominantly Roman Catholic nation has seen outbreaks of kidnapping and violence with Muslim separatists groups such as MILF and the former Moro National Liberation Front (MNFL) which concluded separate peace talks in 1987. Fighting since the 1960s has resulted in at least 120,000 deaths.

The MILF is estimated to currently have 11,000-12,000 members or more. The term Moro in the group's name comes from the Spanish term for Arab Muslims, or Moors, used during the Reconquista period.

The area of land under discussion, called Bangsamoro, refers to an area of the southern Philippines, including the island of Mindanao and other areas, claimed by the MILF as their ancestral homeland. This area could include as much as one-third of the Philippines.

This meeting was the seventh in a series of GRP-MLF Exploratory Talks, and the first to result in a breakthrough on substantive issues not related to immediate security concerns.

Further talks are planned for next month in Malaysia, but full resolution of the conflict is not expected at least until peace talks begin in June. Remaining potential areas of conflict such as the issue of governance must also be resolved.

Press Releases

 * April 21, 2005: Joint statement of the peace panels on the 7th round of GRP-MILF exploratory talks in Malaysia
 * April 21, 2005: Peace in Mindanao integral to regional peace -- PGMA
 * April 21, 2005: Statement of the President: On the peace talks
 * April 21, 2005: Statement of the President: On the peace talks
 * April 20, 2005: Muslims, Christians optimistic over GRP-MILF talks in Malaysia
 * April 19, 2005: Opening of peace talks with MILF a good sign -- Palace
 * April 15, 2005: MILF in final leveling off on Ancestral Domain


text:
Major US bankruptcy reform bill signed into law

April 21, 2005

U.S. President George W. Bush signed into law Wednesday a major bankruptcy reform bill, making the most sweeping changes to the laws of personal bankruptcy in the past two decades. Bill S.256 is predicted to reduce the chances of filing Chapter 7 bankruptcy for 30,000 to 210,000 families per year, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

The legislation was strongly opposed by some consumer advocates and by some Democrats in Congress, who complained about the lack of debate on exemptions they attempted to introduce and tried to derail the passage of the bill. Those who are unable to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy will then be forced to file under Chapter 13, which requires payment of some debts by order of a judge based on the financial resources of the debtor.

Opponents said the bill will end a chance for a fresh start in the financial lives of the American people by keeping them in debt to collection agencies, as well as credit card companies and banks who have made it easy to obtain high credit limits amid mounting consumer debt.

In his remarks before signing the bill, which he supported, Bush said, "The bipartisan bill I'm about to sign makes common-sense reforms to our bankruptcy laws. By restoring integrity to the bankruptcy process, this law will make our financial system stronger and better.  By making the system fairer for creditors and debtors, we will ensure that more Americans can get access to affordable credit."

The bankruptcy bill received a 302-126 approval in the house, after receiving a 74-25 vote in the Senate last month following strong, mostly partisan debate.

The US bankruptcy system was established in 1898. It allowed judges and debtors to come to terms with the costly medical bills that can follow a relative's death, or a family illness. Such cases form nearly half of all bankruptcies filed in the USA, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Now many of those people will have to work out repayment plans suitable to creditors instead of having debts erased by a judge, according to the new law, which takes effect in six months.

In the past, a judge or court representative would calculate an individual's income and subtract necessities of life to come up with a practical repayment plan of some debt. The new law stipulates that a graph, showing the poverty level in whichever state the consumer is living will be the criteria. It assumes that if people can subsist at that poverty level, then everything over that can be used to repay creditors.

Additionally, a provision that allowed debtors to file their own Chapter 7 fresh start bankruptcy has been changed to require a lawyer, paid by the debtor, to do the filing.

The new law also erased "usury" provisions in lending laws, with some lawmakers saying that paying 30 percent interest was not too much when a debtor was behind on payments.

But Bush said that credit will "be more affordable because when bankruptcy is less common, credit can be extended to more people at better rates," meeting demands of the credit card companies which they have been pressing for the last eight years.

"The big winners under the new law will be the special interests that literally wrote it, particularly the credit card industry," said Travis B. Plunkett, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America. "This is particularly ironic because reckless and abusive lending practices by credit card companies have driven many Americans to the brink of bankruptcy."

The forces arrayed on the losing side of this bill said it will hurt low-income working people, single mothers, minorities, and elderly and will end a safety net for people who have lost jobs or face major medical bills. People who fail (refuse) to pay or refuse to go to court will punished by a fine and or arrest warrant made out in their name. About fifty thousand Americans will be punished by a fine and or warrant about three thousand Americans every year will go to jail under the new bankruptcy law. For some people this will be a third strike so they will be put in jail for life.

But Mallory Duncan, a lawyer for the National Retail Federation, said "Bankruptcy has gone from a stigma to a financial planning tool for many."

New personal bankruptcy filings have increased from 172,423 in 1978 to 1,599,986 last year, an increase of 828% during that time; however, it edged down slightly last year.

About 2 percent to 13 percent of those who dissolve their debts in Chapter 7 bankruptcy each year in exchange for forfeiting some assets will be disqualified from doing so under the law, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

Bankruptcy lawyers anticipate a rush to the courthouse to beat the six-month window before the new reforms take effect.


text:
Talk:Study: cognitive therapy as good as medication, but lasts longer

Correspondence
Note that replies below have been trimmed to avoid copyright violation. The published parts are published under fair dealing/ fair use. This was done not at the sender's request, but of my own initiative, after discovering that my government is a bunch of dark ages characters who belong in a dungeon.

Initial query
emailed the American Psychiatric Association <press at psych.org> for alternative viewpoint comment, chance to respond to claims in the Uni of Pennsylvania news release. - Simeon 04:55, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

I am writing a news story for en.wikinews.org, an open news publishing web site, covering a recent report from a University of Pensylvania study.

In their press release, it is claimed:

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=777

"Cognitive therapy to treat moderate to severe depression works just as well as antidepressants, according to an authoritative report appearing today in the Archives of General Psychiatry. The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and Vanderbilt University, challenges the American Psychiatric Association guidelines that antidepressant medications are the only effective treatment for moderately to severely depressed patients."

I wonder if the APA would like to comment in response to their statement, or to further points made in the press release?

Would you like to comment on the validity of the study?

Will the APA review its guidelines in reaction to this finding? or when might you do that?

Are medication and cognitive therapy mutually exclusive?

Does the study mean patients are better off not taking medication, and taking cognitive therapy instead? Or should both be used?

Is cognitive therapy the only such effective alternative/supplement to medication, or are other forms of therapy known to be effective?

Simeon Scott

Part-way through discussion, my reply to her query
She asked whether I can assure that a quote won't become distorted or misrepresented through our editorial process.

 Jessica,

There is no assurance, but it is unlikely. Such occurances do happen, and they are usually noticed and fixed, due to the multi-user environment. But I can't guarantee it.

However, I would post, in addition to whatever portion useful for the article, the full content of your reply, seperately, and that can be protected. The wikinews system also automatically preserves a full history of all changes, so any user who has a query regarding the article is always able to track back through the article's history. If something misleading were found, they could ask to have the document fixed, even if unable to correct it themselves.

I can assure you that I would do my best to portray your comments in a fair light, but I cannot watch 24-hours a day.

You could look at wikinews as being a cross between a forum and a publication. It is not squarely in either category.

(I am myself merely an individual who is interested in publishing news, I am not authorised as a representative of Wikinews or the Wikimedia Foundation which implements the project technical aspects. In my earlier email referring to 'we' I did not mean to imply that I was a representative of Wikinews, but only a member of the community of users of the site.)

I hope that answers your questions. If you are really unsure about giving me information to post to Wikinews, I could instead post an article on my own website, including your comments, which would be protected from change by other users. But it is possible that someone would transclude that text into Wikinews anyway, where it would be subject to the possiblity of obscurement or misrepresentation.

I think if you are concerned, you could examine the resulting wikinews article and inform myself, or comment on the article's 'discussion' page if you have any problem with the content. That would certainly be ethical, in the worst case where you were ignored, you could amend the text yourself (although after some time of inactivity articles are currently made 'read-only'). If you had a genuine grievance, noone could argue that your change amounted to writing with bias, which is the only reason why anyone should not edit wikinews articles about themselves.

I have asked that the wikinews pages display more information to readers about the nature of the content as user-editable, but have not yet had a positive result on this suggestion.

Simeon

Quoting Jessica Mikulski : > Simeon - >  is there a > guarantee given that information that is given to you won't be  > changed to misconstrue a direct quote?

Final reply from APA
 Date:  	Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:25:03 -0400 From: 	Jessica Mikulski  To: 	shevek at bur.st Subject:  	RE: University of Pensylvania study for en.wikinews.org

Dear Simeon -

 from the wikinews web site -

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here."

As the article could manipulated to distort the original quote and information,

Sincerely, Jessica Mikulski

<JMikulski at psych.org>'s reply
Interesting psych.org reply. I hope there is no confusion that a quote would be edited mercilessly. -Edbrown05 14:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Note Ed's reply is from before I found I was obliged to edit mercilessly in order to avoid potential of copyright problems. :\ - Simeon 22:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


text:
Partnership for a Drug-Free America study finds 1 in 5 teens abused prescription drugs

April 21, 2005

The 17th annual Partnership for a Drug-Free America study on teen drug abuse released its findings Thursday morning. This is the second year the survey studied the abuse of legal drugs, and the first year it looked into the use of over-the counter products to get high. The study showed an increasing trend among the nation's teenagers using prescription drugs, such as Vicodin and OxyContin, to get high. Partnership Chairman Roy Bostock summarizes the results as "the first time our national study finds that today's teens are more likely to have abused a prescription painkiller to get high than they are to have experimented with a variety of illegal drugs. Generation Rx has arrived."

The Partnership for a Drug-Free America is a non-profit organization launched in 1987 that employs communications professionals for the aim of reducing American demand for illegal drugs in today's prohibition control strategy. The group often collaborates with the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy. The results presented were from the 2004 Partnership Attitude Tracking Study that surveyed the nation's largest sample size ever in terms of ongoing analysis of teen drug-related attitudes: more than 7,300 teens. Studies pertaining to drugs are often flawed because of their use of a self-reporting methodology. It is very easy for participants in a non-scientific study — especially teenagers — to under, over, or misreport their data. The margin of error is plus or minus 1.5 percent.

The study reported that about one in five teenagers has abused a prescription painkiller — more than those who have experimented with either ecstasy, cocaine, crack or LSD. The most popular prescription drug abused by teens was Vicodin, with 18 percent (about 4.3 million youths) reporting. OxyContin, as well as drugs for attention-deficit disorder like Ritalin or Adderall, came in second place with 10 percent. One in eleven teens (2.2 million) had abused over-the-counter products such as cough medicine. Fewer than half the teens in the study (48 percent) believed experimenting with prescription drugs was a "great risk." Additionally, many teens chose to use legal drugs because of "ease of access."

The number of teens reporting marijuana use declined to 37 percent last year, compared with 42 percent six years earlier. Over the same amount of time, ecstasy use declined from 12 percent to 9 percent, and methamphetamine use dropped from 12 percent to 8 percent.


text:
Iran shuts down Al-Jazeera bureau

April 21, 2005

The Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance issued an order banning Al Jazeera from working in Iran starting Monday, April 18, 2005.

The 'suspension' comes after Arab Iranians protested in the city of Ahvaz. The Iranians claim that Al Jazeera incited the protests. Al Jazeera has stated that it will "continue to cover Iranian affairs objectively, comprehensively and in a balanced way, and calls on the relevant Iranian authorities to reconsider the decision to suspend its bureau's activities."

This is not the first time Al Jazeera has crossed paths with governments in the Middle East. Iraq and Saudi Arabia currently do not allow the channel to operate within their borders.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has condemned Iranian ban on Al-Jazeera as "Spiteful Act of Censorship".

Aidan White, IFJ's General Secretary wrote, "This closure is a spiteful act of censorship and a blatant attempt by the authorities to make media the scapegoat for civil unrest. If Iran has complaints about media standards it should seek professional redress, not take action that undermines press freedom and pluralism."

While there is a diverse range of internal Iranian media, including 64,000 blogs, press freedom is not absolute, for example, the reformist newspaper Shargh was banned from publishing from February 18, 2004 to February 28, 2004, and the newspaper Khordad was formally banned but was recreated with the new name of Fath.

Al Jazeera, is an Arab satellite network. In the United States it is best known for broadcasting Osama bin Laden's videotapes.

title: Iran shuts down Al-Jazeera bureau


text:
User talk:Renamed user 60C3A41B3ABD67D7

Welcome
Saxsux, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! → CGorman (Talk)  20:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Renamed user 60C3A41B3ABD67D7


text:
User talk:12.154.72.130

Welcome
12.154.72.130, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! → CGorman (Talk)  20:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:12.154.72.130


text:
User talk:67.155.156.2

Welcome
67.155.156.2, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! → CGorman (Talk)  20:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:67.155.156.2


text:
User talk:213.187.38.60

Welcome
213.187.38.60, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! → CGorman (Talk)  20:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:213.187.38.60


text:
User talk:152.105.129.9

Welcome
152.105.129.9, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! → CGorman (Talk)  20:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:152.105.129.9


text:
User talk:216.83.202.130

Welcome
216.83.202.130, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! → CGorman (Talk)  20:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:216.83.202.130


text:
User talk:207.248.240.118

Welcome
207.248.240.118, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! → CGorman (Talk)  20:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:207.248.240.118


text:
User talk:81.173.131.182

Welcome
81.173.131.182, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! → CGorman (Talk)  20:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:81.173.131.182


text:
User talk:83.250.195.89

Welcome
83.250.195.89, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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! → CGorman (Talk)  20:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:83.250.195.89