text:
Portal talk:North America

States of Mexico
Okay, I see a section labeled States, but it only appears to include the states of the US, and not those of Mexico. Seems the best solution would be to rename the States section to US States and the Provinces section to Canadian Provinces, which would allow room for Mexican States. Slambo 15:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

State pages
Both the Texas and Wisconsin pages have been started. They both have a link to a "main page" for the state. for instance "See the wisconsin main page...". I dunno about others, but I had envisioned each state page acting like a main page for the state, and not needing a secondary one. Basically like the region/topic pages that we have so far. Views? Lyellin 16:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought it would be, but then I saw the Texas page and created the Wisconsin page to look like it. I've removed the link on the Wisconsin page referring to another Wisconsin main page. Slambo 17:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I created one for Indiana--didn't use the separate "Main Page" concept for the reasons Lyellin mentioned above. What I'd like to do with Indiana is create a "bureau" so to speak for each of the parts of the state--Evansville, Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Gary, Jeffersonville, Bloomington, Richmond, Terre Haute, and South Bend (which, incidentally, roughly correspond to the state's Congressional districts) and further subdivide the reporting into each of those regions.  I've asked for comments on Indiana, at any rate.Kurt Weber 03:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there some way to cause there to be links to state pages from stories that are relevant? Example, the Rhode Island story of the reporter in contempt of court is relevant to the country but also to the state. It seems an automatic way of linking into categories when there is obvious relevance to more than one is the best way to make stories found by readers.

title: Portal talk:North America


text:
Portal talk:Wisconsin

Starting the Wisconsin page
Okay, I'm in Madison and I hope to add news items that relate to Wisconsin and communities within the state. This page was modeled after the Texas page to start with. Slambo 16:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC

Thanks for starting this page. I would like to find/make a "political" Wisconsin Wiki. This Wiki could have sites from communities all over Wisconsin. Wisconsin political needs and events could be viewed and discussed. Any ideas? Bruce  doinggovernment.com

Pages missing Category:Wisconsin
(And archived)

 * 5 killed in return bus trip from marching band competition
 * Earth Day founder Nelson dies at 89
 * Motive in Wisconsin church murder-suicide a mystery
 * Safe house in the Underground Railroad to be torn down
 * Wisconsin Democratic Party calls for Impeachment of Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld
 * Done :) Jason Safoutin 00:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had left that as mostly a note to myself. Now to get some more articles. (Another day perhaps...) --Benn Newman 01:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

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

title: Portal talk:Wisconsin


text:
User talk:Simeon.A.Scott

Thankyou for leaving nice comments ;)

Older comments are archived in the history of this page.

Shortcuts to dates where I performed a cleanup:

 * 22:50, 16 Feb 2005
 * 19:40, 15 Apr 2005
 * 10:32, 1 Dec 2005
 * 03:31, 31 January 2008

hi
good to see an old-timer back. –Doldrums(talk) 10:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

 * "no talking like a grizzled 1890s prospector" ;) -- Simeon 03:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

De-adminship
In light of your recent comments and your low activity on the project, I have started a de-adminship request at Administrators where the community will consider the appropriateness of your admin rights. Regards. Adambro - (talk) 12:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Simeon.A.Scott


text: User:Deightine

title: User:Deightine


text:
User:Slambo

The great overwhelming majority of my Wiki edits are on the English language Wikipedia. For more information about me, see my user page there.

title: User:Slambo


text:
User:William M. Connolley

Please see my page at the english wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley

title: User:William M. Connolley


text:
User:Flying Hamster~enwikinews

Here I am.

title: User:Flying Hamster~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Flying Hamster~enwikinews

Can absense be absent?

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Flying Hamster~enwikinews


text: User talk:Kdz13

title: User talk:Kdz13


text:
Talk:Humans may have contributed to 2003 European heatwave

(William M. Connolley 19:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC))) I've removed 119's:

 * The study's credibility suffers from the same drawback as all mathematical and statistical models: it will never be as reliable as experimental data. Errors can be made in choosing what to include in the model and what effects variables will have. The Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware Newark explains the limitations of global climate models: "The world's best scientists have only an incomplete understanding of how the various atmospheric, land surface, oceanic and ice components interact."

Which just seems POV. Would we add to a story about economics forecasting any similar qualifiers? If not why not? Econ models are models too. Would we add a comment to an econ story saying "we have only an incomplete understanding of how the econmoy works"?

 * Whether we, or really what you're drawing on is the mainstream press, do the same for economics really doesn't concern me. The point here is that there are questions over the validity of climate models and because the article simply says 'the model predicts that...', it's important to qualify the accuracy of such models. If you also put in a source that calls this study a scholarly piece of work I think that'd be great. Right now the article isn't very informative. Anyway, please sign your comments (nevermind saw past hist, name at top isn't what I would expect). 119 21:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 09:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I think you should be concerned. There are questions over the accuracy of economic models, and yet (as you implicitly admit) a disquisition into the accuracy of economic models would look weird in a general economics article.

I figured it was a good thing to add a more general reference to an article about climate changes, so that people who don't know where the scientific community stands on it can see. The Naomi Oreskes article from Science Magazine (03 dec 2004) is what I added, as it's recent, published in a good source and it is about the study of 928 peer-reviewed papers on the subject. MikeCapone 21:07, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More mods
(William M. Connolley 09:33, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)) I also modified:

 * The study is based upon climate activity during the last 50 years, which has been more easily duplicated with climate models which are oriented toward creating heat patterns which correlate with human economic growth. The study does not deal with similar heating which took place during the previous 50 years, before the widespread oil industry, nor the intervening cooling period.

...because (to me) it doesn't seem to make sense. The summer of 2003 was without precedent in the record, so "does not deal with similar heating..." is misleading at best (I'm not sure what it was intending to say). Describing climate models as "oriented toward creating heat patterns which correlate with..." is odd too.

Global warming
The article seems to make the assumption that "human influence" means "global warming". Can all of global warming really be attributed to "human influence"? --Timc 19:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In answer to Timc, yes the article starts off with some very poor, circular logic. I'm willing be believe that the source study did not suffer from the same errors, but clearly removing "global warming" from the model is not the same as removing "human influence" from the model. In fact, one of the most compelling studies in favor of anthropogenic global warming is one which carefully outlines a model for non-anthropogenic (natural) warming and demonstrates that that model closely predicts warming trends up to the early-to-mid-1960s, but then fails to predict later warming. Non-antropogenic warming is believed to be a result of two factors: variability of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (as a result of fires, vulcansim, etc.) and more importantly variable solar activity. The real debate surrounds the question of whether there are other natural sources of warming or if the remaining unexplained warming is human-induced (presumably as a result of greenhouse emissions, though even there there are less accepted, alternative theories such as fire prevention strategies, marine pollution, etc.). Hope this helps. --Ajs 04:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Rumsfeld to remain in Bush administration

Donald Rumsfeld revealed today that he will not resign his position as United States secretary of Defense. Several other members of President George W. Bush's cabinet have resigned. Rumsfeld stated he will continue at his post until at least the end of the Iraq war, although he did not commit to remaining for the full four years of the administration. While also not committing to any dates for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, Rumsfeld indicated his desire that they be withdrawn sometime within the next four years.


text:
User:Jkrusky

taking a break...

title: User:Jkrusky


text:
Talk:E.C. President does not advise Portuguese referendum in light of current crisis

seems fine to me. jkrusky 02:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Arik Soong

 * I'm an undergraduate who studies biomedical engineering.
 * Arik Soong is a Star Trek character.

title: User:Arik Soong


text: User talk:Arik Soong

title: User talk:Arik Soong


text:
Template:Ongoingnews

Special Reports: 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami — Iraq — Ukraine political crisis

title: Template:Ongoingnews


text:
Category:Science and technology

ar:تصنيف:علوم وتقنية bg:Категория:Наука и технология ca:Categoria:Ciència i tecnologia cs:Kategorie:Věda a technika de:Kategorie:Wissenschaft el:Κατηγορία:Επιστήμη και τεχνολογία es:Categoría:Ciencia y tecnología eo:Kategorio:Scienco fa:رده:دانش و فناوری fr:Catégorie:Science et technologie ko:분류:과학기술 it:Categoria:Scienza e tecnologia ja:カテゴリ:科学技術 pl:Kategoria:Nauka pt:Categoria:Ciência e tecnologia ro:Categorie:Ştiinţă şi tehnologie ru:Категория:Наука и технологии sr:Категорија:Наука и технологија sv:Kategori:Vetenskap tr:Kategori:Bilim ve Teknoloji uk:Категорія:Наука zh:Category:科技

title: Category:Science and technology


text:
User talk:Ed~enwikinews

Hi. I noticed that you changed the status of New Beta Version of MSN Search Service from Microsoft released from "noreview" to "reviewed." I think reviewed tag should be used only after it goes through a review perioed during which "review" tag is used, as explained in Article stages. So I changed the status back to noreview. I hope you don't mind. And in case you wonder, I am not against submitting it to the review process. Tomos 06:09, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ed~enwikinews


text:
Portal talk:Science and technology

History:
Tomos 10:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I first found that the page was virtually empty.
 * I wanted to collect all the articles in this area, but there was no easy way.
 * I checked past versions of Main page, Template:Editors talk, Wikinews:Workspace, some people's contribution history, etc. to gather articles. When I find an article in sci-tech area, I attached category:Science and technology so that I can later sort them out further.
 * I then had to check geographical location, date, and review status in order to properly list them here.
 * After that, it kind of became up to date. But I might have missed some.
 * (I am afraid it will be quire difficult for others to do the same much later...)

Maintenance tasks:

 * Find new articles in the area. This can be done easily with Special:Newpages. Right now, there are about 5 to 10 new articles created every day. So you can use Special:Recentchanges for this task, too.
 * Categorize them (date, place, and subject area).
 * List sci-tech articles here.
 * Find articles that have gone through review. Mark them as reviewed. This cannot be done easily. The best way perhaps is to use Special:Recentchangeslinked (aka Related changes).

Current issues:
Just a list of issues. See below for discussions/explanations.

 * Category definition - what exactly should this page include/exclude?
 * Geographical categorization - when a news story has two or more relevant geographical locaions, how to list it on this page?
 * Shortage of reviewer - a major bottleneck for the sci-tech is the lack of reviewers.

Future issues:

 * Sub-categorization/ long-term sustainability.

Category definition
Just so that I will remember... here are some articles I did not caregorize as "Science and technology," though some might.
 * Blog declared Word of the Year
 * Outgoing U.S. Congress takes parting jabs at wildlife protection
 * Ongoing desert locust infestation threatens African food supply

Tomos 06:34, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Geographical categorization
Some news has more than one geographical location associated with it. One example is that a U.S. official make a statement at Buenos Aires about Kyoto Treaty (global warming). Where should this be classified? What if a multinational team of researchers presents finding on the internet?

(Tomos)

Shortage of reviewers
Help for a review seems to be important. Only a quarter of articles written reaches to the "reviewed" stage. This is not because of disputes or objections. Articles in politics and conflicts get a fair amount of disputes, but not much in sci-tech area. So some help on review would push more articles to the reviewed stage.

Tomos 10:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Subcategorization
Should there be a list by sub-categories such as info. science, space science, etc. on this page? This is tempting, but has a potential problem. If those sub-categories are not mutually exclusive but overlapping, then there will be the same problem with geographical locations.

(Tomos)

Categories
Why is this section organised by region? For science and technology it would make much more sense to use something like: Categorising scientific breakthroughs by region rarely makes any sense... --Steinsky 15:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Physics
 * Chemistry
 * Biology
 * Earth Science
 * Medicine
 * Technology
 * Mathematics
 * Engineering

In fact, I would sugest splitting science and technology up: science and technology are not the same thing, and often the grouping together of the two is arbitrary and not useful, which I think is the case here. Steinsky 15:45, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not invovled with these sections much, but I figured I'd put in a quick word about the categories. We need to be careful not to seperate sections too far down- currently we have very few writers/articles, and we need to concentrate on building sections. By breaking the section apart farther, we are creating more work, where it may not be needed yet, at least for awhile. If a large amount of both Sci and Tech articles get written, it might be better to split then. On the various sections- All the "subject pages" are currently divided by regions, as that was the general view of how it should be done way in the beginning of the demo, so that those who were interested in specific areas could keep track of what was happening. I've got no opinion on the matter- just figured I'd answer the question. Lyellin 15:50, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree with both of you in a way. I thought that we can use by-subject classification in place of regional one, and science and technology separately. But if it means to split pages, well, I want more people to do the maintenance, and more articles to list. Our current rate of new contribution is less than an article per day, in the whole sci-tech area. Tomos 16:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Topics
I've made an attempt at creating a topical system as opposed to a geograpical - please tweak as you see fit.

 * I have recreated the topical system using the new dynamic page generation system. It requires that we have at least a few subcategories from sci-tech and we certainly have enough articles now to warrant some subcats, so I created: Category:Biology, Category:Computing, Category:Physics and some others which should be used in addition to the sci-tech one. Lexor 11:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Lexor; I may have reverted prematurely, but can you explain what you're doing? - Amgine/talk 03:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've taken a closer look, and I think mixing two categories in a single section is a very bad idea. Often the categories overlap, and the same article appears twice. Have you looked as Simeon's category tree? I would strongly suggest creating single category topics, even if this means going to a three-columnn format (there is actually a lot of whitespace, so 3 column would be a good idea imo.) - Amgine/talk 03:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Sure, go ahead and do single category topics, I was just keeping the number of topics to about the same as were there before, but I'm not wedded to grouping that way. --Lexor 08:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

news is out of order - article need to be republished
articles past the latest date need to be removed from and readded to the publish category in chronological order. currentley the latest months are missing from the list because articels have been retroactively published. Kevin Baastalk 23:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

add chemistry news section
Hi all, over in en.wikipedia.org we have news in the chemistry portal but this is not linked to WIkinews like physics, is it possible to have a chemistry news section in this portal? Any help getting this solved much appreciated. V8rik 16:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ethiopian Hominid skull?
can we get an article on this? (Sorry, couldn't find any other 'talk pages' to post this to, not a wikinews editor.) ThuranX on the English Wiki. 06:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

he:פורטל:מדע וטכנולוגיה
he:פורטל:מדע וטכנולוגיה

Portal:Chemistry
Can someone add the link to the bottom please? --User:Rifleman_82 in en.wikipedia.org05:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Physics news obsolescence
The last news from physics part is from year 2006. ?! It's ridiculous. I thought it was mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.93.93.119 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthropology and Archaeology
The bar at the bottom of the portal should also have an "Anthropology and Archaeology" section on it. Sumerophile (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

new header needed
it would look sweet --72.73.72.27 16:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Header added. Anonymous101 (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

RSS link broken
I wanted to subscribe to the Sci/Tech RSS feed, but toolserver.org says that "The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user zach, whose account has expired." =[ B Fizz (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry about that. I'll try and look into getting that fixed. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

title: Portal talk:Science and technology


text:
User:Koko~enwikinews

hi,

My name is Koen Huybrechts and I live in Belgium where i still study. Yesterday (6 decembre 2004) I found wikinews and it interests me very much!! But i hope there will come a Dutch version ASAP!!!!

koko

title: User:Koko~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Qadmon~enwikinews

"" and moved from Water cooler  --merriam 12:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Defining 'News'
Hang with me here for I am new at using wiki...haven't had time to read the HELP material as yet.

Defining news then. I am having a hard time grasping the concept of 'news'. Especially as one would apply it to something like what Wiki appears to be. Commnunal reporting of news.

I keep getting hazed out on the subjective vs objective aspects and it keeps churning in my mind and will not solidify. Yet this morning I read two news articles that I followed from the INSTAPUNDIT blog.

One on the 2/24 Marine unit fighting in Iraqi(NY Times) and the other about the debate over Kofi Anin.

Two very big stories here. The Secretartiat General of the UN allowing greed and corruption to flourish with what later turned out to be our enemy and now we are cleaning up that mess and losing American men's lives as we do so.

So I related the two news stories together and made the conclusion that are enemy is also the Secretary General in that Iraq and Hussein flourished and gained immense power as a result of politico's taking brides and payoffs. Quite significant to me. Then I wondered, how come not a word of this was ever reported way back when it started and leading up to now? Who was hiding the facts? Who was to blame for enabling a brutal dictator to exist and pose a huge threat to so many? For the UN who is supposed to control these matters actually being Enablers for despots and terrorists.

I would then wonder why no 'whistle blowers'? Why no people down in the middle of this who may have had a grain of moral outrage did not leak this and if they did how was it that our nations (andf the worlds) news media never getting a clue?

So how does this affect WikiNews? It would provide an anonymous source for just those very types to publicly announce such happenings and events. Being worldwide in scope and as more and more 3rd world countries have net access I think it should be very possible for such to happen.

This is why we must cherish anonymity along with the freedom of information. For those who need to get the word out!!!!

This I believe is where a grassroots news vehicle like Wiki could be of great value.

I cannot qualify good news vs bad news or make the subjective vs objective distinctions. YET I know worthy news when I read it and likewise know trash when I read it as well.

Its very similiar to the subject of 'quality' that Robert Pirsig wrote of in ZMM. Actually the word 'quality' was a concept that went beyond the meaning of the word. It really included a lot of the spiritual aspects of mans conscience. Just like the motorcycle that he suggested we all maintain when he said towards the end "The motorcycle you are mainting is YOU."

So being unable to quantify the concept of quality ,other than being able to know it when you see it, I look upon 'NEWS' the same. I recognize good news when I see it and one of the very important parts of that seems to me to be the observers experiences with what is being reported.

In the NY Times piece many of the marines offered personal comments. I found them to be amazingly insightful and meaningful such that I able to grasp quite a bit of the full range of what it was like being a marine on foot patrol, trying to effect a change in a small dirty country far from home and offering your life up in the process while in the UN a major figure was allowing greed and corrupption to reign suffiecently to allow all this scaffolding and structure to come into being.

We should have taken out Kofi long long ago IMHO. We had supposed watchdogs in place who apparently failed. Was it due to lack of reporting? I suspect that anything that smells as badly as this surely must leave some clues lying about. Where was our Woodwards and Bernsteins then? Where was our vaunted major news media?

Can Wikinews do a better job? What will be it's niche? How does it define QUALITY NEWS then? If it just parrots warmed over news from other outlets then of what value is this?

I know this was lengthy and sorta SOC(stream of consciousness) but I had this thought this morning that it all seemed so clear and there was a REAL crying and I mean REAL bad need for this world and especially our country (the USA) to start 'gettting it right' or we may well start to sink and never rise again.

The terrorist war we are fighting is IMHO one of the greatest battles of mankind to date. We have engaged in that great religious based battle that started even before the huge Crusades. In fact I think it started with the bilblical history of the early history of the Hebrews. It will likely be concluded within my lifetime(may 20 yrs left to me) and will be historic or result in a fall into terrorism, hate and divide with the world finally being reduced to nuclear arms warfare.

Sounds apocalyptic I am sure but most major events I see happening today seem to glow with that aura.

Commnets? Viewpoints? This was mine. I hope WiKiNews can pull something out of their hat. Time is getting short. The internet is the ANSWER. How it is used is the 'Keys To The City'( to quote D.Hopper in Waterworld). --anon 15:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This looks interesting, but it's a mess. I suggest you get an account and contribute an opinion piece.  You would be more persuasive if you put it on its own page in your user namespace, used proper references (to articles -- never mind Waterworld) and corrected typos.  --merriam 17:01, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well Merriam. I do have a account and I was logged on it. As noted I am new at using Wiki but you took a bitch slap at me anyway. Did you enjoy that? Instead of some thoughtful commentary you decided on derision. Instead of a 'helpful' and friendly tip you took the agressor route.

Unless I see an apology I will assume this is the du jour method of commenting and take myself away from this site.

What say you?

Wanta continue this catfight somewhere else or try again in a more healthy attitude?

I spent some time and thought on my comments. I didn't mean for them to be scut for your bad-hair day.

qadmon (seems Wiki won't put my moniker in so I will) ...I have been here all of 4 days and already I have a bad taste in my mouth. Oh and the precious date is 12/06/04 CST 05:35 PM in Kentucky.

 * You can sign posts by typing 3 ~'s or 4 ~'s. 3 will just put your name, while four will include the timestamp. Lyellin 23:32, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Lighten up, dude! he was just asking you to review it and put it as an article, along with proper references. that's a praise!

Goodbye
Think I will take my 'mess' and just walk away.

Few years ago I was looking to host a forum for some company (my alma mater) retirees. I ran into a fewguys in another small town nearby. They were all adither over WiKi and IRC tied in. They were selling websites but they were way way outa sight.

They were all 'windowed up' and I clued them about the benefits of Linux and open source. They thought that I was missing something and they still tried to pump me up about Wiki. I looked at it briefly then and dismissed it.

Then the other day(week or so ago) I noticed a SlashDot article on this site so came on over and decided to jump it.

That didn't work out I guess and I began to sense a certain elitist NIH(not invented here) attitude hearabouts. That coupled with the snotty remark on my last post sorta clinched it for me.

So good bye then....Guess I'll stick with the somewhat lame and over modded Cmd. Taco regime until something better comes along.

Some of you folks may need a real attitude change if your serious here. Otherwise the attitudes will definitely do you in.

qadmon...30 yr retired IBM Staff Programmer and smartass(some say)

P.S. Wiki needs some userfriendly gui work also. Guess everyone carries all the tooltips in their heads. I find that a bother. User Friendly is User Friendly. Smarmy is ...well..just smarmy. As you can tell I am rather pissed by now so better get along.... someone be sure to turn the lights off when your the last one out.

P.P.S. Ohhh the two guys and their Wiki? They are road dust now. Their enterprise folded after a few months of bs and no-sales. One went back to being a noop and the other is a gofer for some tele/internet/marketeers(read spammers).

P.P.P.S. If someone is really in charge here then he needs to Take Charge. If zomebies are running the show ...well so be it.

 * Reading your last comments it looks like you should be fine. I had greater "insults" thrown at me on Wikipedia when I goofed up, and I still go there.
 * Yes, someone is in charge here. The admins list is here.
 * When I first saw Wikipedia I learned things rather quickly. Please have patience; there are help pages here. Cap'n Refsmmat 00:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops. Should this be moved to User_talk:Qadmon?  --merriam 05:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You betcha. It's clogging up precious space for serious talk in here... sorry to contribute more fluff but really, this has to go, as well as that "Defining news" comment above... :p Shana 10:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Qadmon~enwikinews


text:
User talk:John Dalton

Australian Portal
Hi John.... Just letting you know that I've comletely redone the Australian Portal - it now displays articles grouped into days, the same as on the main page, and has a lead article. We can set our own standards on the Aussie portal - for example, we could ditch the whole "develop" and "publish" stages if we wanted to, or we could create an "australia-publish" stage, that would cause the article to appear as published on the Australian Portal, but not on the Main Page. Articles are still in the main namespace, however, and still have to be NPOV. Anyway, let me know what you think on the Australian discussion page. - Borofkin 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:John Dalton


text:
User:Paul in Saudi~enwikinews

Hello, My name is Paul and I live in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. I teach English here.

Leave your comments on my talk page.

title: User:Paul in Saudi~enwikinews


text:
Hamid Karzai takes office as first elected president of Afghanistan

Following his win in the presidential election on October 9, Hamid Karzai was sworn in today as the first-ever elected president of Afghanistan.

Although widely hailed as the start of a new era, both Karzai and Afghanistan face difficult challenges ahead. Insurgencies continue and drug lords still control much of the ethnically-divided country. But the peaceful and democratic vote indicates to many that Afghanistan is on the right track.

The Joint Electoral Management Body declared that Mr. Hamid Karzai won 55 percent of the vote in the election. An expert panel, appointed in the aftermath to investigate complaints about improper balloting, verified earlier today that there were shortcomings with the elections. While the panel said the problems that were identified "could not have materially affected the overall result," it hopes the findings will be used to improve the operations of future elections.


text:
User:Andrevan

 * Seinfeld on HBO award: "Awards are stupid"

title: User:Andrevan


text:
Wikinews:User preferences help

The preferences dialog allows you to personalize some aspects of Wikipedia. They will apply only when you are logged in.

 * This page is deprecated. Please direct edits to the Meta-Wikimedia version of this page

title: Wikinews:User preferences help


text:
User:Earl Andrew

Contributions:

US president Bush visits Canada
I Happened to attend the protest, and got some pictures of it. I uploaded one for this page. You can see more pictures I took here.  Earl Andrew 19:37, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Place name stamps
I have tried to conform pages with stamps showing the date and place of the news event. Here is an example:

- for major cities or major world capitals - for smaller cities or towns, villages etc or if a lot of other cities in the world have the same name. Use xxx, state/province for Canada, Australia, UK and USA, use xxx, country for all others.

How to cite World Cities:
 * Afghanistan: KABUL
 * Algeria: ALGEIRS
 * Angola: LUANDA
 * Argentina: BUENOS AIRES
 * Australia: BRISBANE; CANBERRA; MELBOURNE; SYDNEY
 * Austria: VIENNA
 * Azerbaijan: BAKU
 * Bangladesh: DHAKA
 * Belarus: MINSK
 * Belgium: ANTWERP, BRUSSELS
 * Bolivia: LA PAZ, SUCRE
 * Bosnia and Herzegovina: SARAJEVO
 * Brazil: BRASILIA; RIO DE JANEIRO; SAO PAULO
 * Bulgaria: SOFIA
 * Burkina Faso: OUAGADOUGOU
 * Cambodia: PHNOM PENH
 * Cameroon: DOUALA; YAOUNDE
 * Canada: MONTREAL; OTTAWA; TORONTO; VANCOUVER
 * Chile: SANTIAGO
 * China: BEIJING; HONG KONG; SHANGHAI
 * Colombia: BOGOTA
 * Congo: KINSHASA
 * Cote d'Ivoire: ABIDJAN, YAMOUSSOURKO
 * Croatia: ZAGREB
 * Cuba: HAVANA
 * Czech Republic: PRAGUE
 * Denmark: COPENHAGEN
 * Dominican Republic: SANTO DOMINGO
 * Ecuador: GUAYAQUIL, QUITO
 * Egypt: CAIRO
 * Ethiopia: ADDIS ABABA
 * Finland: HELSINKI
 * France: LYON, MARSEILLE; PARIS
 * Germany: BERLIN; COLOGNE; DUSSELDORF; FRANKFURT; HAMBURG; MUNICH; STUTTGART
 * Ghana: ACCRA
 * Greece: ATHENS
 * Guatemala: GUATEMALA CITY
 * Guinea: CONARKY
 * Haiti: PORT AU PRINCE
 * Hungary: BUDAPEST
 * India: BOMBAY; CALCUTTA; DELHI; MADRAS; NEW DELHI
 * Indonesia: JAKARTA
 * Iran: TEHRAN
 * Iraq: BAGHDAD
 * Ireland: DUBLIN
 * Israel: JERUSALEM; TEL AVIV
 * Italy: MILAN; NAPLES; ROME; VENICE
 * Japan: OSAKA; TOKYO
 * Jordan: AMMAN
 * Kazakhstan: ALMATY; ASTANA
 * Kenya: NAIROBI
 * Lebanon: BEIRUT
 * Libya: TRIPOLI
 * Luxembourg: LUXEMBOURG
 * Malaysia: KUALA LUMPUR
 * Mexico: MEXICO CITY
 * Morocco: CASABLANCA; RABAT
 * Mozambique: MAPUTO
 * Myanmar: YANGON
 * Nepal: KATHMANDU
 * Netherlands: AMSTERDAM; ROTTERDAM; THE HAGUE
 * New Zealand: AUCKLAND; WELLINGTON
 * Nigeria: ABUJA; LAGOS
 * North Korea: PYONGYANG
 * Norway: OSLO
 * Pakistan: ISLAMABAD; KARACHI
 * Palestine: RAMALLAH
 * Peru: LIMA
 * Philippines: MANILA
 * Poland: WARSAW
 * Portugal: LISBON
 * Romania: BUCHAREST
 * Russia: MOSCOW; ST. PETERSBURG
 * Saudi Arabia: MECCA; RIYADH
 * Serbia and Montenegro: BELGRADE
 * Singapore: SINGAPORE
 * Slovakia: BRATISLAVA
 * Somalia: MOGADISHU
 * South Africa: CAPE TOWN; JOHANNESBURG; PRETORIA
 * South Korea: SEOUL
 * Spain: BARCELONA; MADRID
 * Sri Lanka: COLOMBO
 * Sudan: KHARTOUM
 * Sweden: STOCKHOLM
 * Switzerland: BERN; GENEVA; ZURICH
 * Syria: DAMASCUS
 * Taiwan: TAIPEI
 * Tanzania: DAR ES SALAAM
 * Thailand: BANGKOK
 * Tunisia: TUNIS
 * Turkey: ANKARA; ISTANBUL
 * Uganda: KAMPALA
 * Ukraine: KIEV
 * United Arab Emirate: ABU DHABI; DUBAI
 * United Kingdom: BELFAST; BIRMINGHAM; CARDIFF; EDINBURGH; LONDON; MANCHESTER
 * United States: ATLANTA; BOSTON; CHICAGO; CLEVELAND; DALLAS; DETROIT; HOUSTON; LOS ANGELES; MIAMI; MINNEAPOLIS; NEW YORK CITY; PHILADELPHIA; SAN FRANCISCO; SEATTLE; WASHINGTON, DC
 * Uruguay: MONTEVIDEO
 * Uzbekistan: TASHKENT
 * Venezuela: CARACAS
 * Vietnam: HANOI; HO CHI MINH CITY
 * Yemen: SANAA
 * Zambia: LUSAKA
 * Zimbabwe: HARARE

Archives
Added archive section to the main page with some signifigant historical events below it. Note: articles do not exist yet, but I would like to see some made :) Earl Andrew 00:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Update- seems they didn't like the idea, so they took it down. Oh well. Earl Andrew 04:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Weather
I updated the weather on the main page, and listed a load of communities on the weather page Earl Andrew 04:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sports
Added "Scoreboard" - still in its preliminary stages. Earl Andrew 08:40, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Earl Andrew


text:
Thunderbird 1.0 mail user agent released by Mozilla Foundation

December 7, 2004

Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0, a free open-source mail user agent, has been released within the last twenty-four hours by the Mozilla Foundation. Thunderbird has been in development for more than one and a half years. The release of Thunderbird 1.0 comes less than one month after the Foundation released Firefox 1.0, its internet browser.

The new version contains many updates in the areas of security and ease of use. A newsgroup and a RSS reader is integrated into the application, which also features adaptive junk mail filters. Common mail protocols POP3 and IMAP are both supported, so users will be able to access some brands of webmail from within the program.

Thunderbird is directly competing with Microsoft Outlook.

The free download is 5.8 megabytes.


text:
User talk:Thorpe~enwikinews

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thorpe~enwikinews


text:
Calvin Murphy acquitted of molestation charges

December 6, 2004

Former Houston Rockets star Calvin Murphy, accused of molestation by five of daughters, was found not guilty by the jury, putting an end to the eight-month long trial.

The alleged incidents took place more than ten years ago, when the daughters, who are now grown, ranged in age from 6 to 16. They accused Murphy of fondling them and performing oral sex on them. Murphy has 14 children by nine women.

Murphy's attorney claimed that the women's accusations were false and that they were bitter because he did not treat them the same as he treated the children born to his ex-wife. Murphy's two daughters who were products of his previous marriage came to his defense.

The jury indicated that they found the women's statements unreliable. The former basketball star's lawyers said three of the five daughters had been trying to claim $52,408 in death benefits left in a teachers retirement account belonging to their mother, Phyllis Davidson. Murphy had a 20-year relationship and four children with Davidson, who died in a car accident in 1996.

This year, the three daughters continued their grandmother's attempt to stop Murphy from receiving the benefits. He was listed as the account's beneficiary, according to court records.

On Feb. 20, letters went to Murphy, his three daughters and their grandmother that Murphy was the account's rightful beneficiary. The money was never paid.

A month later, Murphy was arrested and charged with sexual abuse and indecency.

Because of the nature of the accusations, Murphy lost his job with the Houston Rockets, where he was a TV commentator. Murphy has not commented about if he has plans to return to a broadcasting career.


text:
User talk:Earl Andrew

 * huh? Better check the page history, all I did was change the date format. Earl Andrew 21:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry buddy... I was just trying to help you out in the debate over the SOA article... moving...

sorry, i take it back. guess i didn't pay that much attention to the date before.. cheers, jkrusky

Welcome
, 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! — Doldrums(talk) 21:14, 28 November 2006 (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
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Earl Andrew


text:
Wikinews:Examples/Soldiers sue U.S. government over 'stop-loss' policy

Eight United States soldiers have filed suit against United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to stop the Army from extending their tours of duty in Iraq. The soldiers claim that the Army's stop-loss policy extends their time of active duty beyond their contracted terms of service.

The eight soldiers, seven of whom filed anonymously, are represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR). According to CCR's website, all eight are in Iraq or bound for it. "Five [are] stationed in Iraq, two [are] in Kuwait on their way to Iraq, and one [is] home on leave from Iraq about to be shipped back."

The U.S. Congress approved the authority for what became known as stop-loss orders after the Vietnam War, responding to military claims that the effectiveness of units had been "negatively impacted" by the loss of experienced combat veterans during the war. What it means is that soldiers will have to remain on duty even after their enlistment time runs out. It affects soldiers who are currently deployed, as well as those scheduled to be deployed in the coming months. The policy itself has no time limit, and is reviewed on "a weekly basis".

The Pentagon claims stop-loss is a normal wartime procedure and a part of the terms of enlistment. Stop-loss orders were first issued during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and have been widely issued since September 11, 2001. Stop-loss orders are used to overcome active-duty personnel shortages, typically drawing personnel trained in understaffed fields first.

Critics contend that the stop-loss policy amounts to a "back-door draft" which forces personnel to stay beyond their retirement date, a claim the Army strongly rejects. The stop-loss policy has also been criticized by the families of troops affected for causing hardship and inconvenience.

"What this boils down to in my opinion is a question of fairness. I served five months past my one-year obligation and I feel that it's time to let me go back to my wife," said Arkansas National Guardsman David Qualls, the only named plaintiff in the suit.

Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Pamela Hart told the New York Times, "The bottom line of this is unit cohesion. This way, the units deploy together, train together, fight together and come home together".

This is not the first legal challenge to the stop-loss order. On August 13, 2004 a United States Army soldier who had been prevented from leaving at the end of his enlistment contract sued to be allowed discharge. No legal challenges to the stop-loss policy have yet been resolved.


text:
Wikinews:Speedy deletion

 category=Speedy deletion notcategory=Wikinews-maintainance-suppress-DPL suppresserrors=true

title: Wikinews:Speedy deletion


text:
Wikinews talk:Deletion requests

Questions about the process
I have some questions about the deletion process: Carlosar 00:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it possible someone turn the article out of the deletion request?
 * 2) If someone turned the article out of the deletion request, is it possible another person turn the article back to the deletion request?
 * 3) Supose someone turn an article out of the deletion request and the deletion deadline is 3 days left. Then, after 1 day someone turn the article back to the deletion request. The deletion deadline will be 2 days left or 7 days left?
 * 4) An article can be submitted to the deletion request many times? Example: I submit article A to the deletion request. Article A pass. Another day I submit article A to the deletion request again.

 * 1) By turn, do you mean remove? On WP, the typical answer is that the article is left on the page for the full time, even if the agreement is that it will be saved.
 * 2) If it's been done before the time, I'd say yes.
 * 3) Not really sure.
 * 4) If the article survives deletion, I'd say it shouldn't be added again, at least for awhile.
 * Just to be clear, these are my views, but that's how i'd think these things should go. Lyellin 01:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Here are my ideas:

 * If a deletion request is obviously a mistake, it could be removed very quickly.
 * Example: someone says an image in the article is a copyright violation, and list the article for deletion. This is an obvious mistake because article does not have any problem. If anything, we need to delete the picture.
 * The deletion request tag on the articles could be removed before the full time, if there is a clear agreement that it will not be removed. But the discussion itself should stay for the whole period.
 * One a concensus is formed that we should not delete the page, the page should not be requested for deletion again for the same reason for a while. If there is a new reason/problem that is not previously discussed, then the same page could be re-requested soon. If enough time has passed to assume that people's opinions might have changed, the same page could be requested for the same reason.
 * Like Lyellin's, these are my personal ideas. Tomos 12:07, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reviewed articles
What do you do if we did not agree with an article which has been passed in review because we think it is not NPOV or some information is wrong? Should we put it at the Deletion request page? Some authors may protest against that saying that the article has already been reviewed and seeing the article listed here is negative(and maybe they are right). Is there a better alternative? What do you think? When an article should be listed here? What should we do if we think an reviewed article has some mistakes? --- Carlosar 08:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hmm.. It sounds like something that could happen sooner or later. Here are my ideas about articles that are 1)reviewed and 2)objected for factual accuracy, bias, or other problem: Again, just my personal views. How does that sound? Tomos 09:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If someone finds a problem in a reviewed article and people agree that the problem is too severe to fix, then we should perhaps delete it.
 * If there is libel and other legal consequences due to inaccuracy or other problem in a reviewed article, then we should delete it. Sometimes, those things could be fixed, but the past version that is still available to the general public does contain the inaccurate info. So those versions should be deleted, at least.
 * If the newly found problem is something fixable, we should fix it and re-submit to the community review.
 * When someone finds a problem, and discussing if the problem is real, if we can possibly fix it, if there is any legal consequence, we can list the article at deletion request. We can also add a tag to indicate that there is a dispute about this article's accuracy/ neutrality/ etc. When to attach the tag, when to request deletion, and other such issues could be somewhat controversial, and I don't have any good idea.

Here are some of my ideas: Carlosar 13:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) If you think a page is not NPOV or has wrong information or other problem you submit it to the Deletion request page.
 * 2) A lot of people start discussing the article problems at the Deletion request page. The page status is changed to "Article development" and people try to fix the page and get into a consensus so the page can be published. The Deletion request logo is changed to "The neutrality of this article is disputed" at the page .The page is reviewed,frozen and get out of Deletion request.

Update
The Deletion request page demands an update. It is big and some deletion requests have expired. -- Carlosar 21:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I cleaned up some. I would say if the non-deletion is the agreement, and a week passes by without anyone commenting, we can remove the discussion. How would that sound? Tomos 21:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Agreed, but move them to the archives please. I'll go through and delete what I can as well. Lyellin 03:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where are the other reviewers?
I think I am the only person who is criticizing the articles which had been posted here. Where are the other reviewers? -- Carlosar 01:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deletion request page updated
I have updated the Deletion Request page. Please see if I did it in the right way. Thanks -- Carlosar 23:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Publication of IRC logs without permission of copyright holders
As copyright holder of my words in the unpublished copyrighted work in the IRC log posted on Talk:Wikinews covered on CNET News.com/notes. I request deletion of my comments on that page, deletion of them from the archived version of the page and deletion of them from any revisions and any archive table revisions containing them (specifically, but not limited to, the page User:Amgine copied the work from). The archive table is the one which allows an article to be undeleted. IRC discussions are unpublished copyrighted works and as unpublished works are rather hard to use under fair use. Jamesday 13:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * IIRC (the page has been blanked already) that log comprised only a short chat between jwales and myself and a few extra ontopic comments from others, there was no material at all from yourself. i also recall editing out offtopic comments in order to make it more usefull as background material. can you please cite where IRC discussions are defined as unpublished copyrighted works, thank you. - Onymous 81.217.21.244 15:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The page hasn't been deleted. Nor, I assume, has the copy in the page it was apparently copied from. Jamesday 17:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is this deletion request really about?
I'm really baffled now that I looked into this a bit more.

This request seems more than a bit odd coming from Jamesday. In the entire conversation, he interjects only once, at 18:33, with the three word remark, "after higher standards:)".

If this remark was somehow embarrassing, defamatory, or obscene, I could understand. But invoking copyright and wiretapping laws over an "unauthorized" quote of three words seems like gross overkill.

Plus the main conversation is between Onymous and Jimbo Wales, and is clearly an interview context where Onymous is asking Jimbo questions about Wikinews and its role in the world. These are valuable insights that benefit the reader to the point that "fair-use" rights surely apply here beyond Jamesday's rights to his three word remark, "after higher standards".

If discussions on a public forum about Wikinews, with the founder of Wikinews (and Wikipedia) participating, can't even be quoted by one of the primary participants, I guess I'm just not getting what this project is all about.

Aren't we a community?

If there is some sort of grudge between Jamesday and Onymous, I wish they would work it out between themselves and let the rest of the Wikinews community benefit from this discussion, as Jimbo appears to be quite a busy person and we don't get the opportunity to read his comments all that often.

I've left a comment on Jamesday's user talk page asking him to reconsider his request to delete this page.

— DV 15:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Please see comments in response to these points on Talk:Wikinews covered on CNET News.com/notes -- Sannse 15:30, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Please see the comments of Jimbo Wales, sannse and myself on the talk page. That channel is a place for informal discussion and one where confidential things like potential sponsorship deals are sometimes discussed - those can't be discussed there if logs get published. The problem is the conduct of Onymous, objected to by every other participant in the discussion who has been online since we became aware of it. Onymous, prior to this inappropriate publication, is not someone I've had any views about. Jamesday 17:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * No, that was not clearly an interview - if anyone believed it was, it was only Onymous - I certainly didn't. People routinely come to IRC channels and ask questions. You might check the fair use requirements for unpublished works and also the journalistic ethics practices for off the record discussions - and identifying yourself as a journalist conducting an interview so those being talked to have a clue that they are giving an interview. Jamesday 17:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deletion for copyright violation reasons
User:Simeon posted a series of comments that imply that we should not be blanking and listing for deletion suspected copyright violations, on grounds that such articles should instead be given a chance to improve, that some variation from text constitutes fair use, that we should wait for the copyright holder to complain and that there's question about the jurisdiction of copyright enforcement.

I believe that most of these questions have been answered by work on Wikipedia. Specifically, the laws that apply are the laws of the State of Florida, United States. The approach taken by users at Wikipedia is to not tolerate any copyright violations, defined as having content being a copy of any non-GFDL source (public domain in our case). According to accepted practice, small changes to content are not a defense against copyvio. The template does say that the article is to be rewritten on the /Temp page, giving an option for a rewrite. Legally, "fair use" is a fairly narrow concept that does not apply to taking content as-is and using it as part of your product (i.e. a quotation from an article is fine, but using paragraphs from an article as part of your article's copy is not fine).

Is there agreement on this? Do we need a page that defines what a copyvio is, and what a copyvio is not? -- IlyaHaykinson 22:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, generally, that many of the copyvio questions have been answered by the practice on Wikipedia. However, you should realize that the press has a wider latitude regarding "fair use" than most any other uses of copyrighted materials.
 * To put it most simply, the press, through its use of a copyrighted material, is usually applying the "transformative" defense of fair use: it is becoming "news" through the use, in contrast to what it was previously. (This is also why Wikinews's quoting of other news sources is more problematic; that is non-tranformative usage.) There are other elements of fair use which might be brought up, but that's the biggy for us.
 * A page describing copyvio would be a good tool for showing new editors how to avoid issues, and when/why a copyvio tag should be added to an article.
 * I'm working on a deletion policy page as well. If copyvio comes up, I'll see about the page. - Amgine 22:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ingested Fluoride Needless; Children Dangerously Overdosed, Studies Show

 * Reason: Potential copyright violaton. The first revision of the article  looks very similar to the article here.
 * I have read several paragraphs from the beggining and they are the same in verbatim, except that the wikinews article has some lines that is not in the external page.
 * The external page is dated as May 2003, so it does not look like that external site copied us.
 * The page has a copyright notice with the company as the copyright holder. If that is the case, there is very small chance, I assume, that the article is posted by the legitimate copyrightholder of the article. But I am not confident about this point. Perhaps the columnist (Paul Beeber) retains the copyright and he might have posted his column here.
 * A random (admittedly casual, not systematic) Google search did not return any other pages sharing the parts of text that I checked, and therefore it does not look like it is based on press release or some public domain material. The fact that it looks like a signed column makes if more likely that it is an original writing. Again, this means that the similarity is not a result of having a common public domain source.
 * All factors combined, I would say we better delete this article as a likely infringement. If further information is supplied from the original contributor (a non logged-on user), or others, my opinion might change depending on the nature of the information. Tomos 09:42, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I blanked and made it a copyvio. Good catch. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:50, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete and fix.

 * The article at first glance is a direct copy from the original. However, many of the expressions have been changed to some degree, gaining some originality. This process could be continued if people are worried about that the degree of similarity is still too great, and should be, rather than simply shooting first and asking questions later.

 * The author has enhanced the original copy to a significant degree by embedding references within the text, something which the original copy does not have. This is a real and substantial benefit. Put together with protections for fair use in discussion forums and news reporting which I believe probably apply, and with a genuine effort (if one was applied) to improve the article to a more acceptable state, I don't see that this could be successfully the subject of legal action.

 * It seems somewhat overcautious to remove articles even before we have received notice from the copyright holder, even an ISP gives that much protection to their users free speech rights.

 * Since this is wiki, why not give wiki users a chance to fix the article up and retain the value that has been added, rather than slip it under the rug as if embarrassed? If we are to collaboratively work on source material like this it is not unreasonable to allow for the first draft to be similar to the source, while expecting a final version to be substantially different.

 * Furthermore, I am not at all confident that the wikinews article is not protected by the fair use protections even if left in its current state. My main reason for wanting to change the article is because it needs some work, and because it is just a poor effort to copy such large tracts, not because I think the work is actually illegal. Simeon 16:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

-- Above article was deleted for Copyvio. It can be re-written as an original, NPOV article in the future. -- Davodd | Talk 09:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I must recuse because I have been involved in research dealing with youth dental risks and resiliency in large-scale datasets. However I should point out that, in addition to the copyvio issues, this article is presented as though this were a widely held scientific consensus; I assure you this is an extreme minority view far outside the norm: in other words, POV. Should Wikinews be presenting tractates? - Amgine 07:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Simeon, copyvio tags are supposed to list the site the content was taken from, so its normally easy for others to start with it if they desire. But, I think you (Simeon), may be correct *if* the copyvio is to an offline or commercialaly restricted source. In such uncommon senerios, we could still blank the article, but provide a link to the pre-blanked version of the article, and not delete it for some time. Nyarlathotep 22:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion request for "Perpetrators of Iraq mosque attacks..."
The only two sources listed, Al-Basrah and GlobalResearch.ca, are hardly reputable media organizations. Not to mention that a single author wrote both sources and we all know what happens when only a single source is used. Further, simply pasting a large quote as news is inappropriate. If you can find more evidence and sources for this story, then it should be rewritten professionally instead of simply copying and pasting. Otherwise, it should be removed. Sduffy 13:24, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Articles to be deleted (already archived) when the software issue is resolved
What is the software issue, an admin deleted images uploaded by a vandal this morning, so I was woundering what this section is for then.--Ryan524 19:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tell people about DR (proposal)
If something is listed on dr, that the majority of it is the work of one wikinewsie, they should be notified. Often they forget to put on their article, then three days later it magicly dissapears. This especially applies to new users, who don't know what happened, and don't know, or are intemidated by the undeltion process. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I Support this, it won't be hard to do Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but it usually easier to just delete the and publish if it might survive.  Otherwise, list & tell.  Nyarlathotep 22:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Extreme Apology
I must've edited an old version of this page yesterday by mistake and deleted others comments in the process; thanks to Brian NZ for correcting. Neutralizer 13:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

7 days for non-articles
I think pages which are not articles (categories, portals, policies etc) sholuld face the same time as OR stuff (7 days). These pages are less likly to have their contributors see the dr in the period of three days. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah why not. PS nice to see undefined being used; good, isn't? Dan100 (Talk) 21:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I love flags. They've been imensly useful. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since no one has said no, and this has been here for a while, I'm implementing. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 04:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion requests -- archive
Is there a pointer to archives somewhere? I can't find it. --67-21-48-122 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Deletion requests/Archives. ReporterFromAfar3136 15:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment
1 How to list a page here 2 Note for admins 3 Deletion requests 3.1 January 30 3.1.1 Helicopter circling over Burlingame, CA    3.1.2 Producer Timbaland "samples" music by copying whole song 3.2 January 29 3.2.1 El Paso, Texas hospital endangering staff 3.3 January 28 3.3.1 Template:Flagicon 3.3.2 Template:Carver County, Minnesota 3.3.3 Template:Minnesota/Counties 3.3.4 Image:Msnbc bushpoll.jpg 3.4 January 27 3.4.1 Tim Kalemkarian runs for US President, US Senate, US House 3.4.2 PREXCEL-Q solves the complexities of real-time qPCR 3.5 January 26 3.5.1 Church group backs 'extremist' mosque 3.5.2 Saturday's Stakes Preview - November 25, 2006 3.5.3 Ermine takes Falls City; Premium Tap favored in Clark 3.5.4 Record crowd welcomes racing's return to New Orleans 3.6 January 24 3.6.1 Image:Allende.jpg 3.6.2 Image:Reservationprotest.jpg 3.7 January 23 3.7.1 image:Firefox logo.gif 3.7.2 Adoption 3.7.3 TxtPower_spread_its_news_around_the_globe 3.8 January 21 3.8.1 Portal:Norwood Young America, Minnesota 3.8.2 Image:Roxburymosque.jpg 3.9 January 19 3.9.1 New version of SearchInform 3.2.08 3.9.2 Celebrity_big_brother_racism 4 Proposed deletions 4.1 Abandoned 4.2 Copyvio 4.3 Minimal 5 Undeletion requests

This is the biggest deletion request contents box I've ever seen on Wikinews :) I guess we're getting bigger or the copyvioers are gettin' loose again! — F e  llow  Wiki  News   (W)   (sign here!)  01:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or we're geting lazy. a bunch of those could have died already (normal articles are three days) Bawolff ☺☻ 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Normal articles are seven days. Copyvios are three days. — F e  llow  Wiki  News   (W)   (sign here!)  00:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Nope, copyvio is 1 (but technically its seperate from dr). "Articles written from other news sources are listed here for a period of three days. Original reports have to be listed for seven days. Non-articles also appear for Seven days."

Bawolff ☺☻ 00:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"Articles written from other news sources are listed here for a period of three days. Original reports have to be listed for seven days."

I am a little confused. How about articles that are not original and are not from other news sources? — F e  llow  Wiki  News   (W)   (sign here!)  21:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

leave old pages be
while listing or deleting articles, keep in mind that Wikinews did not always function in the same way that it does today. old pages that served a purpose at an earlier period, but which is no longer used or has been superceded can be left in place as being of historical interest, especially those which also include content, such as Passenger ship Voyager radios SOS in the Mediterranean/Line. deleting these serves no purpose. if needed, u can tag them as historical or superceded. –Doldrums(talk) 09:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unused unfree images
We currently have quite a backlog of images which are not freely licensed and whose use on Wikinews would come under the fair use defence. Since they aren't used we cannot use this defence so these images should be deleted. I wrote a quick PHP script to search through the subcategories of Category:Fair use images in order to discover the magnitude of this problem. The results of this are at User:Adambro/Unused, and as you will see there are over 100 images.

I've raised this on IRC in order to seek a solution to this problem and to try and come up with a policy on what to do in the future. User:Brianmc has suggested tagging these images which an template to categorise theses images in a similar way to Abandoned to list them on WN:DR for a period of seven days during which users can raise an objection to the deletion by moving to to the normal deletion request process and opposing the deletion.

It was suggested that unused images shouldn't be tagged with until seven days to ensure that image wasn't uploaded for an article to be written imminently. This would mean that an unused image could be deleted after 14 days after it was uploaded. Another suggestion was that waiting seven days after tagging to delete in cases where the image was uploaded more than seven days might be unnecessary however this could complicate the process slightly more. The time between tagging and deletion is probably a point worthy of discussion. As is whether we should notify the user and in what circumstances.

I'd welcome any comments on this proposal. Adambro 19:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that in all cases a comment should be left with the uploader as soon as the image is tagged. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Nice, - Full Support Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

 * sounds good to me. i've no particular preference between the alternatives of 'tag first and wait' or 'wait and tag' so long as there is a wait. –Doldrums(talk) 05:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Well balanced solution.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request for Hiretrade
The article Hiretrade looks like blatant advertising and doesn't seem to qualify as a valid news article. I hope you consider my request, guys... Blakegripling ph 23:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request for Free Knowledge Project - The Newest Technology in Modrern Education
This article is only advertising ... Grimlock 08:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion request for 2007/08 German Bundesliga: Bayern Munich has early stranglehold on championship after one-sided game
The author is a Bayern Munich fan, hence the article is inherently point-of-view (an early diff). Also, I don't see how a two-point lead is a "stranglehold" when three points are awarded for a win. - 69.207.236.60 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews:Story preparation/Wikipedia versus the WebComics: Define notability
Would it possibly make sense to add something like w:Template:Not a ballot to the top of this deletion discussion? JoshuaZ 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm actually tempted to semi-protect this page, as the comments are getting very annoying and most (if not all) of the opposes are not that relevant or with no relevant reasoning, and would likely carry little if no weight in closing anyway. Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just went to add that template, but it was deleted one day ago. Adambro, what was your reason? You didnt provide a reasoning in the deletion message. Matt/TheFearow | userpage|contribs 20:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was copied from wikipedia (GFDL vs CC-by). Bawolff ☺☻ 21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a temporary semi-protect would be acceptable. (I don't know about you guys, but I really couldn't care less about somebody who just signed up to vote, opinions). Bawolff ☺☻ 21:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to the previous comment: Indeed and not wanting to get involved in more problems I deleted it. However, on many occasions templates have been copied from WP on the basis that template code is not really the same as article content and I'm not aware of any objections being raised by Wikipedians. Adambro 21:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For sufficiently simple templates this isn't an issue because they are likely not copyrightable, or the copyrights are not enforceable. However, this is an extensive template that was constructed by a lot of thought and detailed discussion at Wikipedia, so the GFDL concern is larger. We may want to just paraphrase the main text and use that. `JoshuaZ 21:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing when no consensus
When a deletion request closes with no consensus, should the status quo remain by default? For example, if an undeletion request fails to reach a consensus, the page remains deleted. Similarly, for a deletion request, the page remains visible to all users.

There are at least a couple of alternatives:
 * 1) Discuss each failure on a case by case basis
 * 2) Go by default unless the closing admin sees good reasons why a default close would be unwise
 * 3) Have no default, and leave 'no consensus' closes entirely to the discretion of each closing admin

Is there an established practice for these situations?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 * General convention, from what I have seen, is to keep the status quo if there is no consensus one way or the other. I'm assuming you're talking about the DR of the interview? Tempodivalse [talk]  13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 * While we're on the subject, I've been wondering about a related point. The policy at the top of the page is crystal clear that a deletion discussion must remain open such-and-such days, in this case seven.  It is less explicit that a discussion must not be allowed to go on any longer than that.  Should there be (I can see both sides of this question) an explicit statement in the policy that a discussion can be closed at any time after the deadline, but admins are not required to close it promptly if discussion is active and seems to be making headway toward consensus?  --Pi zero (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

 * Generally the status quo has indeed been how its done. I would call consensus to do something with the interview was established; be it blanking, deletion or my proposal, the last being what we got. Towards Pi Zero: We should just add that in. It makes sense that if consensus may be established with a bit more discussion then it should be left. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Abdul Qadeer Khan
I'm not sure where the consensus is to keep this category. Perhaps someone would care to explain? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Since nobody has, I shall implement the fairly apparant consensus and delete it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Status of this venue
Seems that the "Deletion requests" venue is no longer populated as it was in 2000s. Therefore, I wonder whether it serves purpose anymore. How would closing this venue affect Criteria for deletion policy? --George Ho (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone familiar with the sisters expects to find a page like this. It's valuable to have this when an occasion comes that it's needed, there's no significant cost to having it, and the cost of getting rid of it and then later wanting it again would be massive.  Speaking more broadly, looking for ways to "simplify" the project by eliminating elements of it would be harmful to the project; we aren't looking for ways to shrink the capacity of the project, quite the contrary. The historical disparity in activity here is indeed more than just level of project activity:  before the modern era of review, and associated standards, deleting articles that didn't measure up (and, I gather, squabbling about it) was a major part of the workflow (whereas now the vast majority of them simply cease activity when they haven't got a chance of passing anymore, and pass through abandonment).  So I expect this will probably never be as bustling as it once was, nor would we want it to be; it's simply here when needed.  (You don't remove the emergency escape valve on a steam boiler just because you've never seen steam escaping through it.)  --Pi zero (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm.... all right about the venue. Meanwhile, what about updating that "deletion" policy? Add more criteria? Relax the criteria? Tighten them? How else? --George Ho (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any problem with the deletion policy. We're not particularly bureaucratic (it's not my fault the level of privs I have here is called "bureaucrat" :-).  --Pi zero (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Involved admins and requesting closure
Concerns this. Shouldn't an uninvolved admin perform this action? It says at the top of the page that seven days is the minimum, not the maximum. Given the small group here, these things proceed slowly. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * On a small project, the uninvolved-admin thing is often impractical. I wouldn't have made a marginal call.  Some of these things proceed slowly; this one didn't. --Pi zero (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

title: Wikinews talk:Deletion requests


text:
Wikinews talk:Examples/Soldiers sue U.S. government over 'stop-loss' policy

Archive 1

Replace dispute tag
Since this article will continue to come up for deletion repeatedly unless some form of compromise can be reached to have it off the disputed categories, may I suggest the dispute tag be replaced with text stating the article is inaccurate, was never published (afaik), and will never be published? - Amgine/talk 04:15, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Or, since we already have an accurate version, just revert to it and be done already. - TalkHard 05:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * An edit to the article more than a month after the last previous edit; iow rewriting the article's history and destroying its value as an historical document. It would certainly be more accurate, but it would not be representative of the moment. - Amgine/talk 05:21, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * What historical value is there in an unfinished, inaccurate article? So what if it took a month to get around to cleaning it up? It was never finished in the first place, and was clearly marked as being in dispute the whole time. Now let's please stop wasting time on this and revert it. - TalkHard 06:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * No. First, it was published, though then withdrawn. Second, you disputed one point, then disputed a second point after it was published. Finally, the historic value is in the very discussions on this page which, in many respects, reflect the development of knowledge of the incident as it was known at the time by Wikinews contributors. - Amgine/talk 22:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

 * It was "published" (if there is such a thing with Wikinews) before I agreed it was ready. But whatever, we're clearly never going to agree, and I'm out of patience, so I'm reverting until you can point me to the official policy that supports your point of view. - TalkHard 01:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Initial stages on Meta, and WN Archive conventions. This is your first warning for removing a dispute tag without consensus. - Amgine/talk 06:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Once again, the article was abandonded in an unfinished state. It was never finished, and therefore was never "frozen." And spare me your B.S. warnings. You don't get to take a side and be a mod, so get another mod to "warn" me. Your warnings will be ignored, especially when you have basically threatened to keep putting this up for deletion until it finally goes through. - TalkHard 07:51, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * If it were abandoned in an unfinished state, then you should have no problem with it being removed along with the dozens of others I have been putting up for deletion. I don't have a "side" in this edit war; I'm only a gnome trying to follow the policies of this site as best I understand them. Therefore I will revert your edit warring, and archive the article as per the policies of this site. - Amgine/talk 21:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

 * That's it. As much as I hate wasting even more time on this, you leave no choice. I've take this the dispute resolution page. I've stated my case. Feel free to state yours. - TalkHard 04:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert to the accurate version referred to above and publish this well written and important news story ASAP
Paulrevere2005 03:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's six months old. It's never going to see the light of day. Sorry. Dan100 (Talk) 11:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

TalkHard's edits
TalkHard wants to remove two paragraphs from this article. I don't know why, both are legitamate and relevant to the story. Dan100 (Talk) 22:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure why we need to go over this yet again, as Amgine (I think) has conceded that the paragraphs are inaccurate. The issue at this point is about whether or not policy allows the change to be made. But I will explain the problem yet again anyway.

 * The article is about a lawsuit, filed by David Qualls and 7 anonymous John Does, filed in December 2004. Paragraph 7 starts with the line "Joshua Sondheimer, an attorney with the San Francisco-based law offices of Michael S. Sorgen, who is representing one of the plaintiffs identified as "John Doe"", but this refers to a different lawsuit, filed by 1 John Doe on August 17, 2004. They are two separate lawsuits, and the article confuses them as if they are the same one. The quick fix was simply to remove those two paragraphs. - TalkHard 22:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Thankyou! I couldn't find a date on the pdf text of what was filed, but I'm going to take your word for it. I feel that, personally, your edit should stand now it is clearly justified. Dan100 (Talk) 20:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, it was a subtle error, which is why it it passed over many eyes without being caught. Some of the other errors early in development were also pretty subtle, which is the reason for the edit warring back then. Anyway, the dispute tag can be removed now as well. Thanks. - TalkHard 20:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What and Why, but not archive
I understand what was edited, and why, but I will oppose this article being listed in any archive or the Category:Published because it was edited long after the time frame and therefore does not reflect the knowledge known at that time by Wikinews editors. It should not be used as an historical document because it is now inaccurate for that purpose. - Amgine/talk 21:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


text:
Category:NPOV disputes

fa:رده:خبرهای مشکوک به تخطی از دیدگاه بی‌طرف

title: Category:NPOV disputes


text:
Category:Deletion requests

These articles contain the or for short it's the  flag.

Please take part in debate on whether a listed article is to be deleted, at Deletion requests.

Note that some pages listed are not up for deletion, but are related to the deletion process. These items are grouped by an asterisk (*).

de:Kategorie:Löschkandidat es:Categoría:Solicitudes de borrado eo:Kategorio:Forigendaĵoj fa:رده:درخواست‌های حذف fr:Catégorie:Suppression ja:カテゴリ:削除依頼 pt:Categoria:!Páginas para eliminar fi:Luokka:Poistettavat tr:Kategori:Vikihaber silinecek sayfalar zh:Category:删除请求

title: Category:Deletion requests


text:
Template talk:Sortedstories

What the community think abuot having an archives section with wikipedia articles from events 10,20, 100, 1000 years ago? That jsut got put in, would be interested to hear discussions. Lyellin 03:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saying Wikinews in it is somewhat misleading as all links were to encylopedic articles on Wikipedia and we will never cover the fall of the Berlin Wall or such, so I don't see the purpose here. If this is to be an archive of our content, then we should wait for achived content. 119 04:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Brettz9's added categories
These are some good possibilities, but I think we should talk about them before adding them willy nilly.

+	 Local +	 	+	 Feel-good +	 	+	 Oddities +	 	+	 Tabloid +	 	+	 In-depth features +	 	+	 Alternative categorizations

- Amgine 04:28, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Fair enough...My apologies for jumping in with them...Although I hope to see all of them (Tabloid only for the sake of shuffling off stupid stories to their own section for those who are engrossed by them), I particularly feel there should be the ability to have experimental alternative categorizations. Oh, I might add "Religion" as a category.

Could we also have links on the main page leading to the subsections below? (And a Main Page Temp or the like to allow for experimentation?) Brettz9 04:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No apology needed. Just that the main page attracts a lot of attention, especially from wikignomes like me!

I like the idea of sub-sections, and experimental categorizations. Can you explain those a bit more, convince me of the soundness?

 * For links to subsections, my intention was to be able to click to go immediately down to, for example, the Sortedstories section of the main page. Right now, the page is very long, and if that is usually what I will be interested in, it takes a while to get there. (Sorry I should have added this to the main page talk instead).

 * For experimental categorizations, I think it is just nice to allow these to be added (Wikipedia has such a section too); I don't have any particular kind in mind at the moment besides the ones I just added. These alternative ones could also be comfortably proposed without needing then to be immediately well fleshed out.

 * But to give some more examples, one could do "news about women or from a woman's perspective" (e.g., women rebuilding after a war), etc., "news about children", (actually these could be under a section of being sorted by "protagonist type" or something like that. (NGO news, government news, etc. (as opposed to topical news like "politics")

Religion is likely to create controversary, natch. I support it, but I support peace more. - Amgine 04:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, by the way, I didn't mean religion needed to be an alternative categorization, just another category.

 * But as far as controversy, since we're dealing more with facts here than beliefs (Wikipedia can describe beliefs), I don't think it will be quite as much of a challenge, unless people are going around claiming this or that miracle happened (though perhaps they could say that such-and-such people claimed to have seen such-and-such) (though I for one would hope it doesn't get really into focusing on these kinds of things, but anyways). There could also be an interfaith subsection (e.g., religious collaboration going on at whatever level, etc.--this could overlap with the proposed Feel-good section as the latter would not need to be limited to personal stories as the commercial news usually does it). Although some ignorant people make it into a contentious issue, religion has done a lot in history to actually unify people, and I would be hopeful that people of different Faiths (or no faith) could, while adhering to NPOV, highlight the charity work, the ethical training, etc. which such groups are working on, as this can often be eclipsed by the so-called religious people meddling in politics. Of course, there would be some conflicts and scandals that would be relevant to cover, but if we're going to allow news on one of the taboos (politics), why not the other? :)  Public television in the U.S. for example has managed to have a news program which highlight current developments in different Faiths without getting real controversial.

 * Oh yet another thought...How about a section for press releases? Does any service do this already--automatically post different organizations' press releases? Brettz9 05:14, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wow, great comprehensive response!

Let me address your first point: the main page is long, difficult to use, would be nice to have a menu-type list of links at the top -

We're aware of the problem, which has several facets. One of the ways we're addressing this is designing new layouts and templates. Here's a group of candidates which I'm aware of, but there may be more. Check Talk: Main Page for discussion on some of the issues:
 * Main Page/Sandbox
 * Main Page/Sandbox1
 * Main Page/Sandbox2
 * Main Page/Sandbox3
 * Main Page/Sandbox4

Experimental categorizations -

Sounds to me like these are aggregation categories, rather than actually topical or regional categories. Sort of like two newspaper cities; both draw their international news from the same wire services, and cover the same stories, but generally choose articles with different slants.

It should be quite easy to build a project-type page which would highlight a specific viewpoint/interest, such as your example of a feminist world-view. I would worry about a "religion" aggregation, since wiki experiences suggest the various factions would try to dominate with one or another viewpoint.

 * Isn't there the same concern about partisan politics (or feminist for that matter)? I would think, again, with the news, having items like "Dalai Lama visits...", "The Pope speaks out on..." are potentially important topics to many people, religious or not. It's nothing that any newspaper with a "Religion" section has to deal with (which is quite a few, from what I've seen). I did not mean that there would be any "slant" or special viewpoint except if you mean by this that certain stories might be of interest to a particular audience. But this proposed "protagonist" section (which is just one alternative categorization) need not necessarily be from the point of the view of the protagonist (though it could be too), but _covering_ the protagonist, in which case it would be a kind of topical categorization--but one which you are not likely to find so easily in a traditional categorization. For example, under what academic discipline would you find children or women, of racial/ethnic groups, of NGO's, etc.?  Possibly under "Sociology", but I think these would be too important (and broad) of categorizations to be embedded within this field that people might not think of.

However, you might be interested in the development of bureaus on Wikinews. These are regional focus groups, who are working on news in/from their areas. Similarly, topics such as the ones you mention would be just as valid, focusing on producing articles in a given subject matter. I would personally rather that certain types of bureaus do not form, such as religious bureaus, since they seem innately biased and therefore would not reflect well on Wikinews as a project, but I don't see anything wrong with them logically.

 * Thanks for the scoop on the bureaus. Well, I think there is going to be some unavoidable bias on any topic, but hopefully the collaborative environment can ensure good NPOV whatever it may be, particularly for religion whose goal is ostensibly, as with science for material and intellectual topics, Truth. I mean there is certainly a bias from agnostic/atheistic secular materialists as well, including efforts to squelch religion as even a topic in many public forums. I would hope that "neutrality" would not preclude wiki sites from constraining information about religion to marginal areas like overcommercialized holidays (or only about conflict for those who masquerade with a "religion") as it certainly has been in commercial broadcasting. Besides, what good are we doing in informing people if we don't report on the beliefs informing many people's actions?

As for Press Releases, yes there are groups which aggregate them. Check out the Reference desk; I think they have a list of them. - Amgine 06:43, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks... Brettz9 04:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * So, by the lack of other objections, are people amenable to the topics I originally posted being added back?

title: Template talk:Sortedstories


text:
User:Frazzydee~enwikinews

Please see my Wikipedia user page. Thanks.

title: User:Frazzydee~enwikinews


text:
User:TalkHard

I'm a video game programmer from Los Angeles, California. I'm very glad to see this project underway. I will probably focus on articles that I feel are important, but not covered by the mass media.

Proposals

 * Quality_over_Quantity
 * In-Depth Articles
 * User Comments

Major contributions

 * U.S. Department of Defense committee releases report critical of war on terror

Other projects

 * Wikipedia: TalkHard

title: User:TalkHard


text:
User talk:209.162.235.10

aka. jkrusky

title: User talk:209.162.235.10


text:
Talk:Calvin Murphy acquitted of molestation charges

I think the fact mentioned in the article are accurate.

koko