text:
Talk:Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review released

NPOV
Jason Safoutin 23:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Overall, the impact to current operations in Iraq are negligible.
 * One of the most contentious aspects of the plan...
 * ...have been stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 * ....but it should be going into... (either is or isn't, cannot speculate)

 * Stating that the "Pentagon's Defense Review is complete" could arguably be considered too vague, since the Defense Review is complete AND it was released.

 * This article is about the release of the QDR, not merely it's completion. So I move that we move the article to "Pentagon's Defense Review Released". (All words in title capitalized.)

 * What say you? (You being the other people contributing.)

 * (AntelopeInSearchOfTruth 02:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC))


text:
User talk:209.208.180.66

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

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!--MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:48, 3 February 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.
 * Newsroom - The comunity portal
 * 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!

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

title: User talk:209.208.180.66


text:
President Bush to request USD$439.3B defense budget

February 4, 2006

The Bush Administration said Thursday that it will request a Defense Department budget of US$439.3 billion for 2007. This is an increase of over 4%. This does not include a planned supplemental bill to fund ongoing actions in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The proposal's details are still not final, but the budget that President Bush will submit next week will be for planning purposes. $2.3 billion of the budget will go to preparing for a bird flu epidemic.

Many weapons programs were tweaked but no major weapon system was cut. Funding for unmanned aircraft will be increased.


text:
Talk:RU486 Abortion pill hearings begin in Australia

I suggest someone move this page to a name that mentions the hearings are Australian, EG. "RU486 abortion pill hearings begin in the Australian upper house" or "Austrailian RU486 ... hearings". Thanx 68.39.174.238 00:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

some very similar language from The Advertiser article appears in the article here. e.g. "Speaking outside the hearings..." 71.192.96.224 03:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Its been fixed mate. I ask that you would re-read the article again, bearing in mind the changes. And please remove the tag. I would also ask that you get an username, and a Talks page to enable discussion. --elliot_k 04:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Dr Connold's quote has been removed.--elliot_k 05:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There is still some issues with this. for example the first paragraph is a C&P.

 * Dear anonymous, no name person - More information please? Please tell me where the C&P is from? And what you issue is with the first paragraph. What other "issues" are there in this article? Also, out of courtesy, please use a username signature to identify yourself, and make dialogue flow. Thanks --elliot_k 05:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Note about sources. To my understanding, a copy-vio is using material you're not allowed to under law, like copying and pasting a portain of the article. Plagerism is using sources without listing them. If you are quoting something it should be directly atributed on that line.

 * Dear Anonymous no name, What is a "portain"? All sources are always listed. I am a stickler for that. I did not realise that Wikinews guidelines ask for direct attribution in the line? Maybe I'm wrong...? --elliot_k 06:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"By clicking "Save Page", you explicitly release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License. You agree to allow your work to be attributed to "Wikinews".

In order for you to release this contribution under the CC-BY license, you must have written it yourself or copied it from a compatibly licensed resource or public domain resource.[emphasis mine]" Bawolff ☺☻ 05:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Deleted Archive 10

'''This archive is closed. If you wish to add a closed deletion request, go to Deletion requests/Archives and find the latest archive.'''

Apple stops distribution of 17-inch PowerPC iMac
A bit old. from two months ago. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Yugoslavia
Country doesn't exist anymore. Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina, Category:Croatia, Category:Slovenia and Category:Serbia and Montenegro can be used instead. -- Deprifry|+T+ 17:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless category. Current events (which is what WN describes) arent goint to refer to Yugoslavia - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Man accused of avoiding security at Californian airport
Abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete as per listing -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Roy Walker to visit Strathclyde Union
Abandoned and unsorced - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete as per request -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Uproarious tension in Greek match
Abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete as per request -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Containership strands on river Schelde in the Netherlands
Well and truly abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete as per request -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Teachers fighting terrorism
POV, lack of activity, unsourced - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete as per request -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Human rights
This category does not meet the NPOV requirment- It has perspective, different people can make what they think of it. Also based on the deletion debate of Category:Terrorism - "Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder". Human Rights can be said to be in the eye of the beholder. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Self-identification as "human rights workers, activists, etc." usually matches the definition.  Of course, there is nothing wrong with two "human rights" groups being opposed to one another.  Nyarlathotep 11:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Nyarlathotep. The category is called "Human rights" and not "Human rights violation", the latter would indeed face similar issues as Category:Terrorism, the former does not. --vonbergm 20:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. even if i understand Brian POV Jacques Divol 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I just want to point out I have no prob with this category, but when category Terrorism was put up for deletion below, and as it looks like it might be deleted, I feel all categorys that have a POV should go- not just Terrorism Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shows favoritism to one set of items defined as "human rights", leads into user's own perception.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This category differs from Terrorism in that people will choose to self-associate with it allowing uncontroversial tagging of an article with the category.  Beyond that... --Brian McNeil / talk 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Impossible to define neutrally and objectively. Internally inconsistent (id est: at what point does freedom of religious practice interfere with freedom of speech? who defines what either of these are?) -  Amgine | talk en.WN 22:22, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per Amgines & MrM's reason. Jason Safoutin 18:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Take the death penalty, for example. People who support the use of the death penalty don't consider it to be a human rights issue, and so wouldn't place it in this category, whereas people who oppose the death penalty would. Therefore, the existence of the category itself is not neutral. Another example is abortion... would it be okay to start adding abortion-related articles to this category? Many people consider it to be a human rights issue. - Borofkin 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * it would be reasonable to categorise death penalty/abortion/similar "controversial HR" articles under HR when such concerns are explicitly cited in the article. Doldrums 06:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. To give an article the category "Human rights" implies that there is consensus that the article concerns a human rights issue. In the case of the death penalty, abortion, and others, no such consensus exists. If, by your rationale, we accept "Human rights" as a category in abortion articles, then we should also reasonably accept "Category:Pro-choice" and "Category:Baby murder". - Borofkin 06:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the 30 articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 alone would place the vast majority of Wikinews articles into this category:
 * Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
 * Presuming this category is preserved I assume we will then begin categorizing our articles appropriately. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * perhaps i haven't expressed myself well. i do not intend wikinews to come up with definitions of nebulous concepts or take a stand on controversial issues. but i think wikinews should have "typical" news categories(including terrorism, HR, non-proliferation). and i think we can "objectively" categorise by guidelines such as "categorise only if the 'category term' is explicitly stated in article" (so a death penalty article which states HR concerns will be tagged, not otherwise). one possible difficulty with this is the blanket use of one general statement " said DP raises HR concerns" (a general statement, not made in reference to the particular story) in every DP article. but i think this can be handled. (such a blanket use would usually call for to be very notable, use of such a statement can be contested for POV, relevence, etc).
 * reg. borofkin's concern, i'm not sure if our use of categories amount to endorsing particular views(especially if a guideline such as the above is followed). at least i regard categories simply as a search/indexing feature.
 * reg. amgine's example, the same guideline will take out most wikinews article(unless of course, in each article, somebody is talking about the application of Art. 3 to that story). Doldrums 06:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * That is exactly the POV I'm trying to point out. Almost all news is about Human Rights. This category, however, will only single out a specific subset of those articles, and that subset will be highly biased in favour of some governments or ideologies, and oppoosed to other governments or ideologies. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * i don't quite get how it is pov. any govt. or ideology will have the same opportunity: get ur statement in the article, and the article gets categorised accordingly. this gives it the required neutrality, for instance a US statement abt HR in china or a chinese statement abt HR in US will both get the same tag. (what will remain is a "bias in coverage": what nubian tribesmen see as HR won't make it very often on wikinews, what US state department see does. but that is a different matter).
 * i am not quite convinced by the "all news is ..." argument. this would make all our categories subcategories to HR. (does wikinews use subcats?) and therefore a subcat would take precedence over the parent-cat for most news. (and whatever is left gets HR!). Doldrums 07:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep agree Nyarlathotep. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]]
 * Delete. I agree with Borofkin --Cspurrier 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I buy vonbergm's reasoning. Neutralizer 03:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * KEEP I belatedly opposed the deletion of the Terrorism category. Human rights area at the core of almost every news story. A note on POV: POV is always an issue when ANY category is used. It is human nature to put things into perspective. Even thinking about the notion of NPOV is a POV. So is creating and deleting categories. Human rights is a useful category. Note on Categories: Indeed I think categories will become ever more important over the development of Wikinews, particularly in terms of archiving and searching. So, in an effort to construct some precison in open-source community media-making, I have added two categories this week: Refugees and Deportations. Yours in semiotic service... --elliot_k 17:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Serbian Security Service said to hunt Mladic
Abandoned. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree that its too brief, but it does have formating issues. Nyarlathotep 11:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Austevoll bridges
Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 20:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Older talk page. -Edbrown05 08:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I just speedied it- talk page of deleted article Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 20:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 02:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This category requires a judgement call which does not meet the WN:NPOV requirements. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *Keep. I agree with Edbrown05 - there is such a thing as terrorism and as it impacts our daily lives there should be a category for it - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm breaking my rule against voting. Category expresses a POV. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 05:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. What, there is no such thing as terrorism? -Edbrown05 08:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sufficiently objectively, no. What about so-called eco-terrorists like ELF, who painstakingly avoids harming anyone?  What about various U.S. millitary tactics?  What about every small revolutionary army in the word?  Big stupid fight potential.  Muslims/Chrisitians OTOH may argue over who is an is not a real Muslim/Christian, but we can objectively assign Category:Islam/Category:Christianity based upon self-identification, location, etc.  Nyarlathotep 10:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * After one look at the Portal-esque category, delete. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a few articles in it, and as Edbrown05 said "What, there is no such thing as terrorism?" Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - No-one self identifies as a terrorist. There is debate as to whether an act is terrorism or not, and as such it isn't a neutral term. - Borofkin 01:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Terrorism is a POV term, it is bad when we use it in an article and even worse when we use it as a category --Cspurrier 03:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete sinblox (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It was created on the 8th of July, why has this not been listed earlier? And If this gets deleted for POV, the same could be argued for a cat like ‘’Human Rights’’ or.... Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it should have been listed earlier, but that is no reason to not list it now. And you are also right that Category:Human rights is questionable. It would be an interesting vote/debate, should someone decide to have it. - Borofkin 06:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, Category:Human rights is just fine since you can use self-identification to get a close approximation to the actual use of the term. Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with both sides of a debate self-identifying as human rights (like say abortion).  :)  Normal use of terrorism OTOH does not remotely match with self-identification as terrorists.  A fairly NPOV category would be Category:Civilian Casualties, or just Category:Conflict.  Nyarlathotep 10:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, it looks like this debate is headed towards "no consensus". Nyarlathotep 10:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete- this is a no-brainer; once you think about it a bit,imo. Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. Dropping 500 pound bombs on Baghdad was/is the worst type of "terrorism" in my book. Neutralizer 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - After thinking about it for longer than 5 minutes I want to change my vote to delete. I agree 100% with Neutralizer, dropping bombs on a city for a reason made up of lies is as bad as any other "terrorist act" yet we do not call it that way. I am sure we can use the Politics and Conficts, Crime and law and War category instead - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Sorry for breaking the No Commenting rules above. I use the 'Terrorism' category sometimes. Its a pity I fully missed the discussion on this one. I would argue that there is indeed a necessity for the cat. Its probably not worth the words now, considering the agrgument has been won, and the discussion has been. Is there a way discussions like this can be flagged or something? Cheers --elliot_k 16:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comic artists response to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
Abandoned. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to find time to do it, and if I ever did, I can read the deleted version myself to work on it. It could be speedy deleted as "request of sole contributor", execpt that a wikipedian started it as a one line article, but I think this was also my fault.  So yes it should be deleted.  Nyarlathotep 11:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The New Tribes Missions forced to leave Venezuela
Abandoned. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

2006 Super 14 season begins
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 21:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sharon's Condition Critical After Surgery
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned -  Amgine | talk en.WN 21:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Abandoned, seems to be no interest in completing the article - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Massive gas leak in Edinburgh
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Marked abandoned for 8 days, no further edits made -- Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Obelisk SRC approaching Beta 2
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete This is an advertisement and the only source is a blog. See talk page. Also the blog source even has the "contributer" in the comments area. I believe the author of the blog is the writer of the article and he is attempting "self-promotion". Jason Safoutin 15:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Only because the author of the article is the Chief Programmer and Software Architect of the article being mentioned. As such and is self-promotion. This makes it hard to see the article as anything other than PR - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as author and a an exciting beta release to help all students is news.Gary Kirk 10:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm guessing this isn't going anyplace with that reply from Gary Kirk, but I'd like to point out that wikinews doesn't, strictly speaking, object to people posting stories about stuff they are involved in.  But, in many many cases, the involved person is unable to work effectively with the community.  I'm also not sure if we should carry news about beta releases in general.  Nyarlathotep 11:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Its an advertisement. I flagged it initially as NPOV and a stub as well.  I could also have tagged it for Sources given that the only page cited was the creator's own blog.  When there is a new, innovative product, I have no problem seeing it as news.  However, this is a beta 2 release, there is no supporting information, the article appears to be self-serving and there is nothing new or noteworthy about the release of an LMS.  If it was the first open source LMS, that woould be news, but MOODLE, which is much more popular and has a site that tells me what it is, is more newsworthy.  Sorry, but this is so far from being news and suffers a permanent NPOV problem.  As such it should be deleted. -Drew 15:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Egypt wins African Nations Cup
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Marked abandoned for 8 days, no further edits made -- Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 10:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

February 21
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Folkpartiet's Karin Pilsaeter forced to take a breath test
Beyond repair, unsourced. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I have added npov and sources tags to the article, but I think that the article would involve too much work to tidy up - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal)

Category:Archived
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I came across this on my mission from dog to protect everything. It has been applied in a highly irregular manner, and I'm not going to put it on every article I protect. Thus I think it is inappropriate and should be deleted. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support deletion. Nyarlathotep 14:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose deletion. This is designed to prevent old stories that are recently edited (such as to add the PD tag) from showing up on the front page under the OR heading. --Cspurrier 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * From the sounds of it thats not what the category was meant for. Delete Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 18:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Petitioners seek to recall Canadian Minister
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned, disputed. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Official misconduct
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic category, only two articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is very rare for me to say this about a category, but delete. We should concentrate on more general categories, before even thinking about something like this. Also has a very high potential for POV. Ditto, for one below. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Category:Traditional rights
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic category, only one article. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

MySpace banned in most places
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Read it. Could be speedy, but not sure. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Terror In The Land Of Terror
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk about POV. could userfy, but I don't think its worth it. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Special legislative act supports Boy Scouts
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Copyvio, POV, not news. - Avenue 14:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a copyright violation; it IS news, and is not biased, being published on both Drudge and Huffington.

This is an obvious attempt at censorship from one who disagrees with the legislation mentioned in the article.
 * Delete This is a copyvio --Brian McNeil / talk 14:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Karabagh peace settlement
Abandoned, settlement did not happen. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sheikh Mohammed Awards Zayed Prize to Kofi Annan
Copyvio, abandoned. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 08:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Refusal to compromise dragging out Transnistria talks, U.S. says
Copyvio, abandoned. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 08:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Perlos threats to kick out thousand employees in Finland
Abandoned, disputed. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 08:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

E-mail filtering by Swiss Federal Authorities raises constitutional concerns
Disputed, abandoned -  Amgine | talk en.WN 01:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say userfy, execpt its contributors are all anons, oh well. :(  Nyarlathotep 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You could make it a subpage of an anon IP. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Egypt win the African Cup of Nations
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just speedy deleted it. Nyarlathotep 02:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Duplicate Only one sentence too. Jason Safoutin 01:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Steelers win Super Bowl XL

 * Delete Abandoned. Only one sentence. No sources although it is true. Jason Safoutin 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 12:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Steve Kubby still in jail
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

not news, probally abandoned. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Iraqi Police Captured
Was tagged by someone other then me. Looks like abandoned stub. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Internet worm impersonates BBC
Abandoned. hasn't been edited for 5-6 days. No sources. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Greece prepares for extreme winter weather
Tagged and dashed. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Battery Charges?
abandoned. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

--Deprifry|+T+ 19:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Kings Park sex ed scandal
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Copy-vio, also I'm not sure how newswrothy it is/ sounds a bit opinion/non-neutral to me. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Steve Kubby
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not news, also is nealy the same as Steve Kubby still in jail (which is also not news} Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fluoride is Harmful to Your Health
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio. hmmm, distilled water is looking nice, Bawolff ☺☻ 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Corona Space Surveillance Centre (CSSC)
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio, of an about page! Bawolff ☺☻ 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

New Safety Equipment for Mining Employees
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 18:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

MPAA is accused of piracy for unauthorised copying of a movie
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned, copyvio -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

LTTE will not return to war - Norway
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned, copyvio -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Major storm slams the Northeast
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete Didn't happen. Jason Safoutin 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Davey
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not news, doesn't look like it can be news. -- 24.61.119.222 12:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is per the nomination. --24.61.119.222 12:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete if the article is not improved. This is a speedy candidate, and has had the tag applied to indicate this is the case. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Steve Kubby, Libertarian Party activist, grows dangerously ill in US custody
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Never published, superceded by Steve Kubby, co-author of California Proposition 215, grows dangerously ill in US custody, which is published.
 * Delete StrangerInParadise 03:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Politics (United States)
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Cough(DPL) and going to be almost never used. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete -  Amgine | talk en.WN 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Chávez accused of anti-Semitism in Christmas speech (Undeletion Request)
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * undelete Article was never abandoned (continual edits daily, & edited within 24 hours before listed as abandoned. Plus there was no consensus to delete.[] Neutralizer 20:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Linked so I can see the article. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No edits between the 23rd when it was tagged, and the 28th when it was deleted. Seems to be sourced though. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Might have been hard to edit as the complaint wasn't understood too well, it seems. Neutralizer 03:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * see also: Deletion_requests/Archives/Deleted_Archive_9.

 * keep deleted I tagged the story and listed it here, because the story was created January 2, 2006, 21 days later it still was not published. I did not have a problem with the story except some minor pov issues, but 21 days is way too many. --Cspurrier 05:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Undelete, if theres no issue with the story, but don't bump date. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 05:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted No edits other than tag since 22 Jan, article was not publishable at that time. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd support undeletion if it was a "date neutral" story, such as one about some scientific discovery or other "slow news" subjects, but here we failed to cover it when it was news, so it seems a tad revisionist given the topic.  OTOH, I don't object to undeletion either.  Why don't you just add a very small note about the comments to Chávez's wikipedia page (with links to the news sources)?  Nyarlathotep 12:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/Passed Archive 5

'''This archive is closed. If you wish to add a closed deletion request, go to Deletion requests/Archives and find the latest archive.'''

Bill passed by Mexican legislature legalizes possession of small amounts of drugs
— THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 11:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have merged with the main published artilce Andresv 14:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect Nyarlathotep 12:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Prepared stories/Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dies
— THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 11:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC) As was mentioned on this article's talk page by someone else a premature obituary is not in very good taste. Mr.Sharon is still very much alive-and this article seems to seal his fate. One can only imagine how Mr.Sharon's family-members or well-wishers may feel if they (by some chance) were to come across such an article.PVJ 18:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI real news stations have prepared obituaries on many famous people. Nyarlathotep 18:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep.  Well, at some time he will die  and as Nyarlathotep pointed out all professional news organisations have pre-written obituaries and so should we. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not a matter of taste: it's a matter of being prepared. As the page and area of Wikinews it's in states, this ain't for real. Yet. It's quite obviously prepared in case he does die, then we're ready. And he will have to die at some point. :) — THIS IS M ESSED [[Image:R with umlaut.png]] OCKER (TALK) 18:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is standard news practice.  We just have to ensure that these "preparednesses" don't get released before their time.  Aloha, KeithH (talk) 05:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - however we may need to try harded to make it clear that the events have not occurred - remember any reader can view them, and they appear in Google searches. - Borofkin 06:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - preparing obits is standard practise. We might want to consider leaving a blank space for the first line (Ariel Sharon, former Prime Minister of Israel, has died after suffering a massive stroke in January. Sharon was 78.) though, as this is the bit that we can't quite predict - most of the obit preperation work is to make sure we have the background blurb below. Frankie Roberto 11:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankie Roberto's solution solves all problems, just leave some blank words, sentences, or paragraphs around the beginning. Nyarlathotep 13:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

US Federal Reserve ceases to publish M3 index
— THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 20:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned -- no edits since April 11. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * keep (at least for now)Thats too bad, I found that extremly intreasting. Will try and work on it, but I know absolutly nothing about the subject, so I might not be to useful, but i'll try. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this news is extremely important! user:sgodth

 * Comment, this is interesting, and could have been something good if we had a currency expert or two. Some brave soul want to mail a professor of economics at their school and get some quotes? --Brian McNeil / talk 18:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment cleaned up and published. anybody still think it deserves to be deleted? :) Doldrums 17:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Russian bombers flew undetected across Arctic - AF commander
— THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 22:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio, may be re-written. KeithH 19:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Was re-written and redirected to Russian commander: Tu-160s penetrate US airspace undetected and published. I vote to:
 * Keep — Good work saving this story! Karen 09:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Geolinks template system
— THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 19:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Not in use system from May 2005. Template:Coor, Template:Geolinks-US-hoodscale, Template:Geolinks-start, Template:Geolinks-US-streetscale -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep They're not used currently, but they might be in the future, and I see no harm in them. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 16:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Amgine, thanks for running it through WN:DR. :)  Nyarlathotep 19:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Geoportal template system
— THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 19:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The Geoportal template scheme is not in use, nor have I found an example page. This concept would likely be useful, but has been abandoned since summer 2005. Template:Geo-portal, Template:Geo-portal-lead, Template:Geo-portal-sub, Template:Geo-portal-talk -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * KeepI know a fair number of portals that use them. They were all subst: . I don't see what harm keeping them would do. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 16:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that only includes Geo-portal. I find it a bit over the top for most things, but many people use it. The other geo-portals can go, as they're quite useless. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Car hits 14-year-old boy
Tagged as unsourced, actually unsourceable as no specifics given. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Man charged with child endangerment after trying to feed his children feces
Failed to be confirmed, no sources, tagged as misleading. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thaksin stands down for national unity
Superceded/merged into Thailand's Prime Minister announces resignation --Brian McNeil / talk 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Official: Don't Buy U.S. Bonds

 * CopyVio - Jason Safoutin 12:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --Brian McNeil / talk 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Sports/Major League Baseball
According to Category:Duplicate article, you should add all information from one duped article to another and then list it for deletion. If you take a look at Portal:Baseball, it has everything from the portal listed for deletion above. Thus, I nominate that portal for deletion. ReporterFromAfar3136 20:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all merging done
 * Keep felt it was better to just redirect--Jklin 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Kept as redirect, 1-1 -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Mediation alerts
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm nominating this page for deletion on the basis that I was being bold, and I'd like to see whether the page will stand up to a deletion request. It's certainly not a new idea, but a different way of going about it. Have at it. irid:t 00:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Can that be done? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd say it can be done; it falls foul of the guidelines that it may not contain any valuable content. Also, the deletion guidelines don't seem to take into account pages outside of the article namespace. So it's difficult to say. However, I'd like to get the opinions of those who are actively involved. If they disagree, then it should be deleted; we don't need more cruft around here. :) irid:t 01:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Just what are you up to Ironiridis? Are you trying to set precedent for some future move?  Is this a step towards something else?  --Sfullenwider 01:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Sumthin' sneaky. ;) Actually, I want to obliterate personal disputes from WN:ALERT. I'm tired of it. I'm happy to help people reach agreements and work together, but WN:ALERT is for vandalized pages. It's not for somebody getting a snippy message on their talk page. I feel for everyone who thinks they've been personally attacked or whatever, but these things don't need admins; what they need is people paying attention. Does anybody use WN:DISPUTE anymore? irid:t 01:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think WN:DISPUTE is kind of what you're going for -- may be also similar to W:WP:RFC, no? --Chiacomo (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is, and it isn't. My justification is that WN:DISPUTE has mostly died, and doesn't really have the accesability that WN:ALERT does. I wanted to try a different approach because people seem so comfortable with just throwing something on Admin alerts like that. I've created some templates that make the page even more accessable. However, I didn't want to make those same changes to WN:DISPUTE because it encompasses every part of the resolution process: talk pages, WN:TEA, etc. I wanted something more focused. But, some may disagree with me, hence my listing it on DR. ;) irid:t 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem, as I see it, is that editors expect administrators to make subjective judgements concerning NPOV, facts, etc and block or protect based on that judgement. This is entirely inappropriate, of course. Administrators should not use these tools to enforce an editorial opinion. Where does WN:DISPUTE fit into WN:MA? The dispute resolutions steps on DISPUTE are sound, I think. WN:MA should link to DISPUTE on some level, don't you think? For the record, in my opinion, anything which encourages editors to work out their differences rather than argue over blame and fault is an excellent step forward. --Chiacomo  (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the other way around; WN:DISPUTE is linking to WN:MA. In other words, requesting community mediation is a step in the process of dispute resolution. irid:t 02:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete as per request. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per request. Neutralizer 02:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Jason Safoutin 02:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know if I can vote on my own request, but if I can, I'm liking how this is turning out. irid:t 02:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep changing pages and delete them before I learn what they do, and I'm sure to never understand what's going on around here. Karen 19:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Give it a chance. --Deprifry|+T+ 14:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Frugalware Linux founder
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If I was being uncharitable I'd call this spam. But I do think it's not enough of news article and too much of an advert. Dan100 (Talk) 20:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

It does need more work - and I've made suggestions on how to improve it in the talk section of the story (where your complaints should go before you delete it). Karen 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do Not Delete this article yet. It took considerable time to develop and I am doing this through a relationship with people, as opposed to just collecting old news from "sources" littered through google already. --Chris Bradley 21:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We have a content guide, you need to justify the story under it's terms. Also, please don't remove a deletion request notice before it's time us up. Dan100 (Talk) 12:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Surely this article never needed charity to deserve to escape being called "spam." (Remember the essence of Spam and spam: you find them everywhere.) Apparently several of the original objections no longer apply. I have changed the headline to make it satisfy guidelines and no longer seem promotional ("Frugalware Linux Pushes Forward"). (I am not the article's originator and have no connection with nor prior knowledge of Frugalware.) As it has been improved, it is still imperfect but contains interesting news. Similar interviews related to other Linux distributions could only be welcome. —67.21.48.122 14:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:WN briefs 200507012130.ogg]]
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be deleted to make way for the trans-commonsed version. . ReporterFromAfar3136 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. This screws up the podcast feed, and any other sites that link to our files.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object to this and all the others for the reasons MrM gives. Dan100 (Talk) 20:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep MrM's reasons. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 20:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am going to replace the one here on wikinews with the commonsed one. I am not just going to delete this file, i just need it out of the way so we can use the commonsed version. If you don't want that fine. ReporterFromAfar3136 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, fine, but can't you just upload over this file and/or rename? I'm sure I've done that before myself.  But, yes, deletion is fine if your uploading another copy here.  Nyarlathotep 10:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Jan29 news brief.ogg]]
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be deleted to make way for the trans-commonsed version. . ReporterFromAfar3136 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. This screws up the podcast feed, and any other sites that link to our files.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep MrM's reasons. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 20:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:Wikinewbrief-01-03-06-0200utc.ogg]]
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be deleted to make way for the trans-commonsed version. . ReporterFromAfar3136 00:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. This screws up the podcast feed, and any other sites that link to our files.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep MrM's reasons. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 20:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Swedish snowboarder dies during practice run
Abandoned. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed, admins need to fix the article if it'll only take a minute, just tagging is wasteful. --Sfullenwider 05:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sfullenwider Nyarlathotep 16:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sfullenwider Karen 02:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Published so no longer eligible - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 12:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Landmine kills two in India
Abandoned. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Publish. - looks okay to me --Meanmeancoffeebean 11:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Has since been published - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 11:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Bush declares immunity from Patriot Act oversight
Many days old news. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

--04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete. Per Brianmc. irid:t 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain. Old, but very important. Would be a useful article to write for the news archives, perhaps with a pre date? -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not news any more. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain. It isn't really that old. --Meanmeancoffeebean 05:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It isn't that old, only created a couple days ago, looks like the author just didn't publlish it. Anyway, such subtle legal points take time to work their way out through the media, so we should run it with todays date, and just admit that we are slow. Also, I may just be ignorant, but I'd never even heard of a signing statment before this, so its interesting from that whole "see how the system works" perspective.  We should see if wikipedia has an article on signing statments.  Nyarlathotep 16:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep so strange that we are not encouraging new contribs while we complain about "article count"; there's nothing wrong with this articel at all; whatever happened to editing? Neutralizer 22:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --Cspurrier 22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

United Kingdom hit by snow storms
-Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. irid:t 22:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has source, minimal but complete report of meteorological event. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, should be published as is now. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Utah father accused of using shock-collars to punish his children
--Chiacomo (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is extremely libelous,imo, at least until after he is charged; then a new article can address the charges if you like but this article has nothing of value in it at all. Very national enquireish,I think.
 * Delete. Neutralizer 13:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. User says IMO which is his POV. No actionable objections. Article is very clear and lists sources properly. I have also noted this article on WN:ALERT for admin review. Jason Safoutin 13:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, fyi, imo is simply my attempt at being polite. Neutralizer 14:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not meet the legal definition of libel nor any other deletion guideline --Cspurrier 15:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how this article is any different from other articles about accused criminals. If those are off limits and eligible for deletion, I think we have a problem. irid:t 15:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, problems addressed. -- IlyaHaykinson 16:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is completely clear as an article about someone accused of a crime, don't see any issue. 67.171.75.30 17:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC) - please excuse me, that vote was from me. Getting back into the swing of things, I keep on forgetting to log in. Lyellin 17:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. It may or may not be libelous, but this can always be solved by eliminating his name.  Just debate eliminating his name on the article's talk page if your worried about it.  I don't think his name should be eliminated, IMHO.  Nyarlathotep 16:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this one's been closed as a keep & its now published, not sure where the pretty little bar template is though. Nyarlathotep 16:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 04:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

UNC Student Plows into--Claims to be doing the work of Allah
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned, almost complete. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 08:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: as requested - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 20:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Looted, possibly contaminated body parts transplanted into USA, Canadian patients
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

 * KeepArticle was cleaned up long ago but noone removed the tag and published. Date should be bumped. Neutralizer 13:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Abandoned Tag is gone from the article and people have been working on it since the tag was removed so it's no longer "abandoned". Please take it off this list. Neutralizer 03:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Babel userbox templates (undeletion request)
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The babel userbox templates, my March 13th undeletions listed here, should be undeleted as they clearly support the site's mission, by allowing users to find users who understand specific langauges, and we must be able to use foreign langauge sources. Nyarlathotep 23:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Its also wise to import the whole babel system, including wikipedia's instructions for using it, but this is not a matter for WN:DR. AFAIK, the templates listed here are more-or-less those being used by users of this site, as each was added manually.

 * Oppose 32 of 53 templates were in use (60%), and each could easily be replaced by a non-category/non-template Babel system. The Babel system has never been used to support Wikinews, and has never been shown to actually be used on any Wikimedia site other than Meta. There are ongoing efforts to develop policy and process, as well as an ArbCom decision, related to these templates which should be allowed to come to fruition first. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 23:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What about commons? Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment: It would be wise to see where policy and ArbCom discussions go before bringing related items back - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just posted it once it occured to me that its what I should have done in the first place. I don't mind if people want to place it on hold.  Nyarlathotep 03:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Support; deletion was out of process. Neutralizer 03:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support; why can't we have the same thing as wikipedia on a slightly smaller basis? ReporterFromAfar3136 06:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I want to see what the policy and ArbCom discussions find first --Cspurrier 15:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain:' I believe they should be undeleted, but lets wait until the arbcom stage is over. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 18:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Local only
- Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 21:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All published articles should belong on the front page. No matter where or what they might concern. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete--Cspurrier 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Its useful for resolving conflicts about local lingo.  For example, Jason wanted to use a word with opposite meanings in British & American english in the title of a local story, and got into a minor edit tiff with someone.  I told him it was okay to use it, but only if it was marked Local only.  He ultimately found a compromise termanology, but its very good that he had the option of using local only to defend his use of "local color".  Nyarlathotep 22:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this category has nothing to do with being on the front page. It keeps it off developing. (weather thats a good thing or not is debatable, but thats an entirly different argument). Maybe you're looking for Category:No publish. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 00:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: How does it do that, when it is not included in the daily DPL's that show on the mainpage? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 00:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All it does and all its ever done is keep it off Template:Developing stories. template:Special publish and Category:No publish does the main page thing. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How does template:Special publish keep it off, as above, its not on the DPl latest news Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. But I like the idea of changing the category name to 'Local news'. Less negative sounding. -Edbrown05 05:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keepand Don't Move. (No real reason to move it)Neutralizer 05:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Local news as per Edbrown05's suggestion above (iow: delete this category by moving it)
 * commentAmgine just changed a "local only" category on the Buffalo story to the new category he just created;"local news"; so it seems as if the decision has already been made by Amgine. Therefore, further discussion seems fruitless. I must ask Amgine "why? what's the reasoning if there is any?" Is there some practical or technical effect of the name change? Neutralizer 06:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * comment "Local only" is not a news category, while "Local news" could be. You changed the category which someone else had listed, yet was a valid news category name. I merely created the category and reverted your change.
 * Amgine when you "moved" the category; you neglected to include this statement at the top of the "Local news" category which  is at the top of the "local only" category; "Articles listed as "Local only" may be excluded from the front page in the future"..was this omission by intent and if so, it was not very honest to pretend you were only doing a name change; at least it seems to me. Neutralizer 06:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't move the category. I created one from the redlink. I wasn't aware of what was in the other category, so I didn't know that I was omitting anything. I would also suggest that if the consensus is to move the previous category that my simple text be deleted and the other moved into its place; it hasn't enough edit history to be worth keeping. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Move to "Local news", as above. It's useful, as otherwise articles like Events cancelled at Humber due to college strike appear on the main page. Most of the local articles should appear on the front page, just not that, or an article I wrote on an MPP's community barbecque coming up. --  user:zanimum
 * Do they not appear on the main page anyway. I have marked things as "Local Only" and they still appear on the main page.

 * Keep and Move to "Local News" - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 20:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Clarification; Now that the "move" option has been inserted; we need to know who is in favour of moving and retaining this sentence at the top of the category ;"Articles listed as "Local only" may be excluded from the front page in the future" or deleting that sentence from the new category. I think the move option should be dealt with separately as a watercooler proposal. Right now we should be just voting on Keep or Delete; if we start throwing in middle of the road options during these deletion votes; they'll end up being very confusing,I think, just as when Amgine apparently did not realize the sentence was there when he left it out of the new category. Neutralizer 14:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Nuclear proliferation
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This category does not meet the NPOV requirment- It has perspective, different people can make what they think of it. Also based on the recent deletion of Category:Terrorism (whick I disagreed with) It has set a precedent, ‘If that goes, all cats that have a POV will have to go’ its only fair. This will not be the last cat I will nom based on this. All cats with a POV should goBrian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Objective.  Nyarlathotep 13:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. How is its POV? Jason Safoutin 18:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Abstain If we delete all categories with a possible POV we will have none left, however I see Brian's point with the precedent being made - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This category could only apply to countries which are signatory to the NNPA. At the moment this does not include North Korea. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 00:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that was my main POV thoughts on it, It can't be POV if the country has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it as been used in the past in countries that have not signed- and that is POV Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep. No POV showed. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * POV has been showed when it is used on countries that have NOT signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment I'm wondering if there's a bit of making a point in this. There are certainly some articles where there should be discussion about removing this category. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep. But clean up (as needed) agree with vonbergm. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: What is the point of this category when it is only applied to non-proliferation treaty signatories? It cannot cover North Korea, India, Pakistan or Israel. Nor any other contry once they develop the bomb as they will most likely withdraw from the treaty just before testing it (as North Korea did). Yes, applying the category only to countries that signed the treaty might make it "objective", but it also renders it useless at best, but in practice actually misleading. Either the category should apply to all reports dealing with nuclear proliferation (a judgement call that needs to be made even if one restricts oneself to signatories), or it should go altogether (as the treaty is pretty much worthless right now anyway. The US and France have announced that they consider using nuclear weapons against signatories that don't have the bomb and the US is giving civilian nuclear technology to India, a tratment usually reserved for signtories as the "carrot" to sign.) --vonbergm 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes, it should be a reasoned decision. I think very few here would argue against tagging an article about a test detonation in Iran, but the criteria we're laying out in this DR would disallow that.  I haven't voted yet, but I'd tend towards keep provided disputes over whether or not an article merits the category could be kept independent of the  tag.  To start with, someone needs to go through the articles in the category and list them on WN:ALERT where the category has been inappropriately added.  --Brian McNeil / talk 22:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

 * KEEPI think this campaign against categories needs more discussion. More than 3 days anyway. I keep realising that yet another category, and only by remembering to check this Deletion page, is becoming extinct because someone has a bee in their bonnet about categories. Personally I fully believe that Categories will be vital when it comes to archiving, searching and referencing articles over the years to come. We find this with the Indymedia project too... As I said about the Terrorism category (unfortunately belatedly - and I do propose to bring it back because I was quite offended when that one disappeared), ALL HUMAN EFFORTS ARE POV. We can try hard to seek NPOV, but I fear the simple deletion of the unfavourite-categories-of-the-week will no achive it. Please keep this category. As a prolific wikinews contributor, I will be certainly be adding a few more categories as time goes by... But thats just my lil rant. Respecta --elliot_k 18:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Discussions
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Endorses external websites, drives traffic away from Wikinews. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It should be considered a proposal. We don't delete proposals, we discuss them.--Eloquence 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem, however, is that there was no proposal, and it was enacted on a few articles already (without discussion on it's proper use to the community). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I suggest removing it from these pages, and adding something like Template:Disputed template to the template itself.--Eloquence 00:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

- *Keep I don't have a problem with it at the moment. - Borofkin 04:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC) - *Keep But do not use in articles --Cspurrier 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC) - *Keep. There was plenty of discussion on the water cooler. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Your dead wrong about driving trafic away, providing useful likes is what keeps trafic moving through a site.  Nyarlathotep 13:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per MrM's reason. Jason Safoutin 18:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept needs to be explored. There was general agreement to the concept in Water cooler discussion. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, untill there has been discussion on it, and its use. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Murdoch's News Corp. ends automated censorship of MySpace
Article became unabandoned and therefore was no longer eligible for deletion Abandoned - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, AISoT has fixed it. Nyarlathotep 23:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

 * Comment Listing this article here appears to have been the saving of it. The article has been extensively rewritten, additional sources. It may be publishable, but needs other editors to look at it for possible bias? -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Biz Jet crashes in California
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

* Delete abandoned, is news, can be expanded, but it is old. Jason Safoutin 12:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I edited it a bit and it still needs a source or 2...if someone can doi that it can be published. Otherwise its a loss. Jason Safoutin 13:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (note: it isn't tagged)Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Alito confirmed to Supreme Court
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Delete Duplicate of a prepared article. Jason Safoutin 19:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Keep article merged, redirected to main article to preserved edit history. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 23:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael Jackson shops in women's clothes
—M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Abandoned, copyvio -  Amgine | talk en.WN 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


text:
Talk:New pre-Iraq war memo leaked

"Treason" aspect to the story
This is getting to the point where I am wondering whether Bush and Blair broke treason laws? I suppose even if they did, that info does not fit into this story? Neutralizer 03:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess people are calling for investigations of this sort in Britain right now. Step 1 is to officially verify the existence and content of the memo (which will be difficult). Last time Sands published a secret memo, everything he claimed turned out to be true. We will have to wait what happens this time... --vonbergm 03:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What happened to the Downing Street info box? Neutralizer 13:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It was misused by a few users who (inadvertently, probably) misused it to include articles not about the ordeal, so it was deleted (I think?). Check WN:DR, it was up for vote a few months ago.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks MrM. I will try to track it down. Neutralizer 18:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

War "engineering" a separate story?
The idea of the Iraq war having been engineered has gone from conspiracy theory to public denial. Is this part of this article enough for a separate story on that aspect?

"During their discussion at the White House, Bush is alleged to have said that the United States thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq painted in UN colours", explaining that "if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach".According to a high-ranking UN source cited on condition of anonymity by Channel 4 News, it was however perfectly possible to fly planes out of range of Iraqi missiles."Talks of Saddam firing on them suggest to some that the US was almost willing Saddam to strike out on the plane," he added." I suppose it's all too unproven to be news at the moment?Neutralizer 13:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really "news"
Bob Woodward said as much in his book, Plan of Attack, though the administration consistently denied or downplayed many of his claims.

I think the real story is somewhere in the middle: the memo doesn't indicate that anyone was "decieved" about Bush and Blair's war aims, but only that they were committed to a military option while still trying their best to pull a diplomatic rabbit out of a hat. Military operations can be turned off in seconds, but turning one on takes months (the critics already claim that we didn't plan and prepare enough for this war).

This story should not be likened to the pre-war intelligence issues (also highlighted in Woodward's book). Full disclosure to Congress and the people on the true threat posed by Saddam's regime from WMD and terrorist support (whether the intel was driving policy, or whether analysis was focused on justifying a predetermined COA) is essential for the checks and balances to function in our democratic process. The fact that two commanders-in-chief committed to execution of a military option far in advance of the trigger date, and without informing the rest of the world, was just good military generalship. --klandtroop 14:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Bob Woodward did not report on this memo. The memo does in fact suggest that in particular the British people were "deceived", as Blair has publicly denied that the war was decided on on several ocasions after the meeting. --vonbergm 17:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Woodward reported on, or knew of, the "memo" is irrelevant. The point is that it was obvious long ago that the Pentagon's war plans were executed in early January. The policy was there. Preliminary steps violative of another country's soveriegnty always precede major combat operations. When a country takes those preliminary steps, they have committed to a military option. The Iraq war started long before the Third Infantry Division crossed into Iraq from Kuwait in April. However, at any time up to that day, the President could easily stop the war machine. The fact that Blair and Bush denied any commitment to a military option until that day permitted, rather than stifled, last-ditch diplomatic solutions. (Would negotiations have been taken seriously had Blair announced a commitment to invade?) Do we forget that diplomatic discourse continued into April? Did they produce any results? (Of course not--we'd been trying for 13 years). Recall the President's state of the union of January 03: if I recall correctly, he changed his theme from "disarmament" to "regime change" about that time. Open your eyes. Say what you will about the post-conflict plan, but the initiation of the Iraq invasion was pretty textbook. The leadership committed themselves to a plan, but gave themselves an out. When it became clear that war was the only option, they were able to act nearly instantaneously because they had already committed to the use of force. --klandtroop 19:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"editorial cleanup"
MrM, please be more specific about the "heavy bias in the tone of article". To your other point, the article is quite clear that neither the White House nor Downing street have confirmed the authenticity. The sentence you re-entered is unnecessarily redundant, and you gave no explanation why it is needed. I will remove it again. Also, please explain why the contextual information that you edited out is not needed, in the meantime I will reinsert it. --vonbergm 17:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the last time I will do this again. If users cannot start detecting bias in articles by now, I do believe we have a large problem on our hands.  The article is asserting that the transcript is true.  Now, if someone could explain the significance of having this in the article:

"The memo from the sources also states that Bush suggested "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours", so that "if Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]"."

 * that does not spur into a political point, then include it here, now. Also, this one as well:

"According to the memo, President Bush said he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups"."

 * These items should not be included as quotes as they are; because they're not confirmed. The notation of the memo stating this as well is not NPOV, as the memo itself hasn't even been proven as authentic, or even verified of its existance.

 * These articles need to take extreme caution. We do not report on rumors; we never have, we never will.  How can we possibly uphold our level of factuality in reporting if we report on what others simply say, yet provide no proof that it ever happened?  That is unacceptable.  I could just as easily say that North Korea sold nuclear technology to Cuba, according to a memo I obtained from Castro's office, yet hold it from the public and say only portions of it at a time, all the meanwhile it was fake.  There's no difference than these instances here.  We need to stop making articles on these things, ditto the "not-newsworthy" comment above.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 17:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * To me it is no different than reporting that President Bush alleges that "U.S. intelligence indicates Iran has nuclear ambitions". Both are reporting alleged situations and if we can report the accusations derived from anonymous US intelligence, we can report the acccusations derived from unproven memos, I think. I agree with vonbergm's opinion here and will remove the flag. If MrM still feels it's warranted he may reinsert it; but I really can't see the need of an editorial cleanup flag so late after publishing. Neutralizer 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * MrM, how do the quotes *not* relate to the article? They provide important context to the meeting, as it undermines the point that the decision for war was made regardless of what happens on the ground, and that (1st quote) illegal and deceitful methods to sway world opinion were contemplated and that (2nd quote) there was insufficient long-term planning. This is of course, assuming that the memo is authentic. And are there political implications if it turnes out that the memo is authentic? Probably, but that does not mean we should not report the fact! But I agree with you that we should not start speculating about these political ramifications at this point, but we aren't. In summary, I see no problem at all with the quotes you gave. --vonbergm 22:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Better Examples
MrM. If we headlined the unproven allegations contained in these 2 stories which you even participated in, surely the insertions in this article which you refer to above are permissable, at least it seems to me.

Al Qaeda bomb maker reportedly killed in U.S. airstrike in Pakistan

Pakistani Official claims 'foreign terrorists' among civilians killed in U.S. airstrike

Neutralizer 18:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There was proof of them, however. The airstrike happened, both recognize that.  DNA tests confirmed the bodies.  These documents are speculation, though.  There is no proof for them to be based on.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Another example showing that your post regarding this article are purely based on your own personal bias, and not on trying to improve wikinews as you are trying to claim. Try and give me a *single* news source that reported on the *results* of any DNA tests on the bodies. Or just *any* news source that said *who* performed the tests. Get a grip! (To save you some time, TIME reported on the 22nd of January "The US is still uncertain if DNA was recovered from the scene ...") --vonbergm 23:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He's right MrM. Our 2 story headlines above were based upon unproven allegations and were totally bogus as you can see here from the words of our DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER after we ran those 2 stories;

"CNN's "Situation Room" Jan.19th. 7pm

J.D. CROUCH, DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Great to be here, Wolf.

BLITZER: What about last Friday's attack on that building along the Pakistan-Afghan border? Have you confirmed definitively who died, who was killed in that attack?

CROUCH: I don't think there's any confirmation on that. Obviously, I know there have been things that have come out of Pakistan. But all I know at this point is what you have seen, you know, in the press.

BLITZER: But do we know one way or another whether Ayman al- Zawahiri, the number two to Osama bin Laden, whether or not he was killed?

CROUCH: Like I said, I don't think there's any -- there's a full understanding of that at this point.

BLITZER: But there -- but you do -- can you confirm that other senior al Qaeda operatives were killed?

CROUCH: Not at this point, no."

And arguing that "the airstrike happened" as justification for those headlines is like arguing that "the meeting between Bush and Blair happened" as justification for including the references in question.

I'm kind of tired of this too because the only time we seem to have a big debate over the very mention of alleged/unproven remarks or events (even when we identify them as such) is when those remarks or events reflect badly upon our governments; at least that's my impression. Neutralizer 23:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"opinionated statement"
MrM, which part of the statement "At the time of the meeting, world opinion was leaning toward giving inspectors more time and holding off any military intervention." is opinionated? This is a simple facutal statement, backed by the sources, by reporting at the time and it is the reason that the US and Britain did not even ask the Security Council to vote on a second reslution (as it was clear that the vote would fail). If you have a problem with that statement, find a reason that is valid. --vonbergm 22:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're kidding, right? That's not a fact - there are no facts when it comes to opinion.  It may be YOUR opinion, but it wasn't everyone's.  And for you to not even back the claim up with sources is really striking to me, since you are the one asking why I deleted it.  Please, let's get some common sense.  I'm getting really tired of this.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell me which of the following statements are wrong:

1) The US did not seek for a a vote on the second security council resolution. 2) The reason for this is that they did not believe it would get the support needed to pass. 3) The majority of the countries in the world were against an invasion at that time. 4) The majority of the world population was against the invasion at that time. --vonbergm 22:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Governments' positions pre-2003 invasion of Iraq, Popular Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War,   and   support the claim that world opinion (government and popular) was largely against going to war and that most countries (EU, Russia, China, African Union, Arab League, to begin with) called for continuing inspections rather than going to war. In addition, India, New Zealand, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Venezuela, Chile, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia among others opposed the war and no doubt tried justifying it with a "let's do some more inspections" routine. i'll dig up thier exact poitions too, if required. Doldrums 09:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So? It was not everyone in the world's opinion.  You cannot state what is not fact -- and that statement was not factual.  Please stop disregarding the NPOV policy; opinion is never fact -- no matter how much you may want it to be.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * mrm, who said it was "everyone in the world's opinion"? u keep up accusations of policy violations when there aren't any and i'll take it as an attempt to intimidate editors into towing ur pov. Doldrums 04:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Compromise? "At the time of the meeting, many nations were leaning toward giving inspectors more time and holding off any military intervention." Would this be agreeable? Neutralizer 17:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I can live with the compromize, but I am getting sick and tired of MrM's inability to ditinguish facts from his bias and impose it on everyone! On top of that he can't even parse a simple sentence as he is saying that "world opinion was leaning toward" means "everyone in the world's opinion". And he still has the nerve to talk about NPOV, wikinews policy and facts! --vonbergm 20:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:New pre-Iraq war memo leaked


text:
1,000+ of Saudi Arabia's guest workers feared drowned

February 4, 2006

An aging ferry deemed unsafe sank in the Red Sea on Friday with about 1400 people on board, mostly Egyptians who travel back and forth to Saudi Arabia to work as guest workers.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's spokesman, Suleiman Awad, said there were not enough lifeboats, and questions were raised about the safety of the old ship that had 220 cars on it as well as the passengers. "The speed with which the ship sank and the lack of sufficient lifeboats indicate there was some deficiency," Awad said.

"It's a roll-on, roll-off ferry, and there is big question mark over the stability of this kind of ship," said David Osler of Lloyds List. "It would only take a bit of water to get on board this ship and it would be all over. ... The percentage of this type of ferry involved in this type of disaster is huge."

Tens of thousands of poor Egyptians work in Persian Gulf countries for years to earn money. They travel by ship as it is a cheaper option than flying.


text:
User talk:Europimp~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

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! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:26, 4 February 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.
 * Newsroom - The comunity portal
 * 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!

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 Europimp. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Europimp~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 23:16, 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:Europimp~enwikinews


text:
User talk:24.47.45.224

I'm sorry about your relationship problems, but we don't really care. Stop posting the spam. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. 24.47.45.224, welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

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

-  Amgine | talk en.WN 03:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

title: User talk:24.47.45.224


text:
User talk:Two2then

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

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! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:26, 4 February 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.
 * Newsroom - The comunity portal
 * 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:Two2then


text:
User talk:Finaldraft~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

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! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:27, 4 February 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.
 * Newsroom - The comunity portal
 * 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!

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 Finaldraft. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Finaldraft~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:Finaldraft~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Hamaliel~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

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! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:30, 4 February 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.
 * Newsroom - The comunity portal
 * 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!

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 Hamaliel. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Hamaliel~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 23:15, 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) 06:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hamaliel~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Ike9898

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

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! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:31, 4 February 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.
 * Newsroom - The comunity portal
 * 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:Ike9898


text:
User talk:Paulallison

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

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! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:33, 4 February 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.
 * Newsroom - The comunity portal
 * 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:Paulallison


text:
Scores killed in Manila game show stampede

February 4, 2006

At least 79 people, nearly all of them women, were trampled to death and 290 more injured Saturday morning in a stampede outside the Ultra Stadium in Pasig City in Metro Manila. The crowd, estimated at 30,000, had been lined up to get tickets to the Wowowee game show, popular for its prizes. According to reports, the stampede was triggered when someone shouted a bomb threat.


title: File:04February2006.sxw


title: File:04February2006.pdf


title: File:03February2006.sxw


title: File:03February2006.pdf


title: File:02February2006.sxw


title: File:01February2006.sxw


title: File:01February2006.pdf


text:
Gates pledges $600 million for Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis

February 4, 2006

Tuberculosis does not frequently make headlines, but it kills about two million people each year. In a new effort to fight the disease, the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership on January 27 requested US$31 billion for a Global Plan to Stop Tuberculosis, which the Partnership claims would prevent an estimated 14 million TB deaths during the next ten years.

To kick-off the funding drive, Bill Gates pledged to donate US$600 million. "Every 15 seconds somebody dies of TB, avoidably, preventably," said UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, who helped launch the Plan at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. "I welcome the Gates Foundation's announcement today. For far too long, world leaders have ignored the global tuberculosis epidemic, even as it causes millions of needless deaths each year," said Brown.

"The Global Plan is fundamental for Africa, where tuberculosis was declared an emergency by 46 countries in 2005," said Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo.

Tuberculosis is a contagious disease caused by bacteria that spread through the air and usually attack the lungs. One-third of the world's population is now infected, and 5-10% of infected people suffer active TB disease sometime during their lives. Left untreated, each person with active TB will infect on average between ten and 15 people every year.

TB is active worldwide, though most deaths are in Southeast Asia and Africa.

Drugs in use for more than four decades can cure the disease. The World Bank ranked a common TB-treatment strategy, called DOTS, as one of the "most cost-effective of all health interventions".

A childhood vaccine against tuberculosis has been available for more than 75 years.

"This is a disease with a huge impact that is completely treatable and preventable," said Dr. Peter Small, a member of the Stop TB coordinating board. "It's not that we can't do something about it, it's that we've chosen not to."

In addition to limited funding, the fight against TB has also been hampered in recent years by two developments. Because HIV weakens the immune system, people who have the virus that causes AIDS are much more likely to become ill with tuberculosis than those who are HIV-negative. TB is the leading cause of death among people with HIV/AIDS.

The second problem lately has been the evolution of drug resistance among many strains of the bacteria that cause tuberculosis. Some strains, called multi-drug resistant, are immune to the effects of more than one drug.

Stop TB claims that full funding of the Plan will help achieve the Millennium Development Goal to have "halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of tuberculosis." The Plan aims to provide:

 * 1) Improve treatment access--prevent 14 million TB deaths and provide treatment to 50 million people.
 * 2) New drugs--develop and distribute the first new TB treatment regimen in nearly 40 years.
 * 3) New vaccine--develop a safe, affordable vaccine to improve upon the existing vaccine, which has been in use since the early 1900s.
 * 4) New diagnostics--develop efficient, effective, and affordable diagnostic tests for TB--the first in more than a century.

"We have a unique historic opportunity to stop tuberculosis," said Dr. Marcos Espinal, Executive Secretary of the Stop Tuberculosis Partnership. "The challenge now is for people to work together in putting the plan into action, in order to stop one of the oldest and most lethal diseases known to humanity. This plan tells the world exactly what we need to do in order to defeat this global killer."

There has already been significant progress against TB over the past several years. Since 2000, estimated spending on tuberculosis control in the 22 hardest-hit countries has increased from US$800 million to US$1.2 billion; as a result, the number of patients receiving TB treatment in these countries more than doubled.

According to Stop TB, implementing the new Plan will require US$56 billion over ten years--US$47 billion for expanding access to treatments already available, and US$9 billion for research and development of new diagnostic tools, drugs, and vaccines. The total number is US$31 billion more than the amount Stop TB estimates will be spent if current funding trends continue. The investment, the group insists, would have a profound effect on the number of tuberculosis cases averted and lives saved.


title: File:02February2006.pdf