text:
Eight killed in suicide bombing in Algeria

August 10, 2008 Last night a suicide bomber killed 8 people and wounded 19 others according to Algerian public radio.

A van full of explosives was driven near a police building building and detonated. The bombing happened at a beach called Zemmouri el-Bahri. A police officer reportedly fired at the vehicle causing it to explode prior to impact with the building.

According to Yazid Zerhouni, the Minister of the Interior of Algeria stated that attacks happened around 10:00pm (GMT).

Press TV stated that Al-Qaeda's wing in North Africa claimed responsibility. The same wing of Al-Qaeda also claimed responsibility for another suicide car bombing that occurred on August 3, killing or injuring 20 people.


text:
Template talk:Peer reviewed

How can
How can a template be a policy? Anonymous101talk 12:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The use of the template is proposed policy atm. -- Sken   my talk 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the use of this template. I also don't think it has to be policy, (though not opposed to that) but it could be used as an option to help the reviewer formulate talk page notes. Cirt (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Same here, not necessarily policy, but it would be extremely helpful in the process. Plus, Google might see this as a part of the formal validation process if it were to become policy. Thunderhead 12:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, very good point. Cirt (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

revid/reviewer
It would be very helpful to include the revision ID (you can get out of diffs and a few other places) so we know exactly what version it was of. The other idea would be to use the reviewer permission to mark this in the history, which would probably make it even more useful for getting on google news, as they can easily only index reviewed revisions, and we can provide rss/dpls for it. TheFearow (userpage) 19:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would probably be ideal, once we have more Reviewers and an approved system set up at Reviewing articles. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * whoa. You mean you could mark it as having passed/failed review using Flagged Revisions? Like in the article edit history where it says "sighted" or "validated" right now? That'd be sweet if that's what you mean. Gopher65talk 22:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

accuracy
should this template have a parameter 'a' for accuracy? or 'f' for fact-checked? Or does this fall under verifiability? --SVTCobra 21:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that falls under verifiability, though I would not be opposed to changing the current wording to make that more explicit. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What's this?
I'll tell you what it is, one of the best templates to ever have been created on Wikinews. This is exactly the kind of work which will make a real difference in demonstrating that we can be considered credible. Skenmy deserves a great deal of respect for doing the legwork. This is something which I'd suggested as part of the recent discussion about restructuring our publishing process but didn't have the opportunity to develop the idea further.

I think we should ideally be looking to link each of the checklist criteria to an appropriate page explaining the requirement. I also think that we might want to look at substituting the template rather than including it. This is because as Wikinews policies and guidelines evolve the criteria will also change but the template on article talk pages needs to reflect a check against the criteria at the time of publication. This will probably require more than simply changing the instructions to say say subst since it might need adapting such that the article talk pages don't end up with loads of awful if statements or whatever. Adambro (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should be substing this on talk pages and not transcluding it. Cirt (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe just subst at archive time? -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I think it is a good idea to subst right away. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed version
Shouldn't the template contain a link to the version of the article that was reviewed? That way other reviewers can see what changes have been made since the last review. - Borofkin (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea. Cirt (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe Skenmy has added a field for revision ID. --SVTCobra 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, saw that - thank you Skenmy! Cirt (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pass/pass
Is it possible to get the template to accept both Pass and pass? Currently it only accepts the un-capitalized form of pass, which can be a problem if you forget and type Pass. Thanks. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Ah, is that what I did with it? Yes, absolutely then, please sort that out. I'm sure it is do-able, but I dunno if it's easy or a pain, I've no knowledge in such things... Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was problem. It's happened to me countless times and i'm sure it will happen a lot more. It's rather easy to fix but you have to know the template to make sure you are not screwing up anything. I tried doing it myself but I couldn't quite get it. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added this functionality now! -- Sken   my talk 20:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You da bomb! —Calebrw (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe 'passed' as well? -- DizzyStar (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Where does it state that use of this template is the required format for a review?
used the rollback tool to revert the publication of an article that had been reviewed and published by, and commented on the talkpage: Rolled back for lack of a formal 'peer reviewed' template. The review by was pretty explicit in stating he felt the article was ready for publish: Well I have gone through the article and it was a bit biased previously but it seems like Cirt has fixed that aspect of it and now I can see that its well written, well sourced and unbiased and the writing style and settings is excellent as well..I believe it can and should be published now. Also, in his edit summary in the edit that published the article itself, the comment was also pretty explanatory: its great, well written,well sourced, very professional, can be published. So I ask - Where does it state that use of this peer reviewed template is the required format for a review? I was under the impression that peer reviewed was merely a helpful tool to assist the reviewer in commenting after reviewing an article, but not a requirement if the reviewer does make a review comment on the talk page. Cirt (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Review does say "Reviewers: See Peer reviewed for help with review comments on the article's talk page." . I have to say that forcing the use of it is a good thing.  For one it ensures that those important points (verifiability, npov, etc) are actually looked at.  For two it gives us just a little more reliability for those places that don't believe Wiki based news is possible. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, I had actually added that bit to the template, and again the text of that is to "help" with review comments. I think it is a good step forward as well, but it was not discussed, and this action was not supported by any requirement stated anywhere on this site. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really really really dislike yanking articles that have been published. That being said I have done it once or twice when its been necessary.  As for what TUFKAAP did, meh.  Not the best idea, but I assume they felt they had good reason.  I think we should simply require the use and move along.  /me shrugs. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well in any event I feel the use of the rollback tool to do this, without an explanatory edit summary, was also not the best way to go. And please note that this template is proposed, and there was never a discussion about requiring its usage as part of a review, or a consensus to do so. Until that is done, editors should be able to review/publish articles and then give an explanatory review comment in a new subsection on the talk page, without being required to use this template to do so. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the template can be used but is not required. Another aspect we have to consider is that some user, mostly new users, don't write anything on the talk page, rather then write something like "Review pass" in the edit summary when they add the publish tag. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see the poll, in the subsection below. Cirt (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Poll - Should the usage of this template be a required formal step in the review process?
Should the usage of this template be a required formal step in the review process? 17:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Voting is evil, etc, etc. However, I do believe that this discussion should be mentioned at the overall discussion at Wikinews talk:Reviewing articles if not completely moved to that location. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

This is part and parcel to us being listed in Google news. "Yea, it looks good" simply doesn't cut it - no matter who says it. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see that you are obsessed with Google News. Have you seen that a lot in the list are press releases which is not news? What if you have to kill off what is good about wiki, and most of the participation, to get into GNews?Ccas (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a note at the policy page where this was being discussed that voting is taking place here. It seems somewhat strange that voting is occuring here, not there, but oh well. Here we are. Jade Knight (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. There already was a note there, and I posted a note about it in a new subsection with an appropriate title at that talk page. Cirt (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, I will petition for rights to be removed from anyone who self-publishes and sights an unreviewed article. I had a case this morning where someone self-published just because the review stage was not official policy; this was a waste of time as the user was not an Editor - the article never appeared on the main page. From this I was left to update New Zealand so that the infobox will only show sighted and published articles, there is perhaps a need to go through more of the infobox templates and enforce this.

Those who are opposed to the review process and vote thus below should be aware that those in favour of the process will continue to insist on reviews. Ignoring the current convention we've been working with for a few months will just mean people oppose you getting the right to sight. Arguing that it is un-wiki is pointless, this is our mechanism for controlling the front page and I see nobody who votes oppose putting forward any argument why you should be allowed any old thing on the front page of en.wp. They have an even more strict and controlled process than we do; our process has social and technical enforcement measures that prevent rouge contributors from damaging our credibility or jeopardising our Google News listing. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: From this I believe that nobody should be granted Editor status without being listed on WN:RFP for several days soliciting input. I would urge administrators not to grant the right to people who have not demonstrated support for the review policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the review process in that I am acting with good faith within the current proposals. I won't sight anything that hasn't been reviewed.  However, I have advocated for a relaxation of the proposal: I am not yet convinced that I should vote in favour of the current proposal.  I will understand if that disqualifies me as a "flagged revisions editor," though I hope it doesn't.  Although I understand that Brianmc's comment wasn't directed at me personally, I don't intend to form a cabal of rouge editors (or of any other colour) and I think that giving 'editor' privileges should be a response to support for the community's values, rather than outright support for a particular proposal.  By the way, self-publishing is encouraged by the Breaking News instructions, though I suspect this is an oversight.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * read like a threat :) Imagine when "peer review" means review by privileged editors who need approval of even fewer bureaucrats who got there first.  Are we using the success of WPedia to fund a few future journalists at Wnews, who are willing to put up with anything?  Ccas (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

 * - This poll has now been open for over 2 weeks. Cirt (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) It is a good template, it makes sure that people look at the key aspects of an article.  It also helps us keep our formal review proccess, FORMAL.  Oh, and everyone uses it anyways. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 18:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I think it should be required as it is a physical example that the article was reviewed. Until we get far enough along with this whole process, then I think we need to use it every time. When we pick up new contributors, then it should be an example of how we conduct editorial reviews. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:09, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) I won't sight anything that doesn't have this. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Definately a good idea, useful step in the review process and helps keep opinion of our editorial process up. TheFearow (userpage) 00:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) "Yeah, I think this article looks good" is just not a proper review, this template shows that you have checked. Sure, you could fake it, but I doubt many users want to do that. Anonymous101talk 08:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Absolutely. This is a necessary step in ensuring we have a verifiable, reliable news source that can be trusted. --  Sken   my talk 11:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Its needed to ensure newsworthiness etc.. -- Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) I have taken some time to give this a good deal of thought and I am changing to Support. Helping to formalize this part of the Review process in the long run will be a good thing, both to help bolster the integrity of the review process, and to help make sure articles actually get a quality review and not a quick skim. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) I agree that some kind of review process is necessary, but I'm still not convinced that the mandatory use of this template is the way to go. However, I have no alternative suggestion(s), so, for the moment, I weakly support this by default, due to the fact that some review process is better than none. I, of course, reserve the right to unsupport this should a better proposal come along:). Gopher65talk 16:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) *Well it doesn't have to be _the most amazing_ template, but without it most people will just glance over an article and go "ok, I 'reviewed' it, and it looks good enough". At least with a template they have to fill it out and they can't say they "Didn't know" they were supposed to check the copyright or similar.  Ok, most of us probably don't need this help - we know the dealy - but the newbz don't. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 00:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually like the template, I'm just not sure that a template (by itself) is the best way to go. But like I said, I haven't thought up anything else, and I haven't seen anyone else think up a better idea either. So for the foreseeable future I support this. I just don't think we should think that this is the end all of the quality control process. Gopher65talk 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) However, I do not think that the fail version of peer reviewed should be necessary to remove the review template. It is too much work when something not even close to reviewable has been submitted. More importantly, I suspect some people are issuing passing reviews without doing a proper job. It's hard work, but you have to check that everything is sourced. You have to check grammar. You have to make sure it is properly categorized. You have to make sure the links work. --SVTCobra 01:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) *I agree. Sometimes an article is pure dribble, and it fails in every way. Personally I'd only provide a fail review if I thought that the article had a snowflake's chance in hell of eventually being published. I therefore don't think that a peer review template should be necessary for an obvious fail. Gopher65talk 01:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) ** I think everyone agree's on that. When I (and most) see an article that is just no chance of passing (not long enough, etc).  Just kick it back to develop with a cleanup or such.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 01:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) At first it took a lot to get used to, but I believe this is a net positive in terms of boosting credibility for Wikinews. Mike Halterman (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * We should certainly require the editor that changes an article from review to publish to make some explanatory comments in a new subsection on the article's talk page. But the usage of this template to do so should not be required. I believe this template was modeled after the template PGAN on English Wikipedia used for the Good Article evaluation process - a template which reviews articles for five main points, under a similar style and structure. However, please note that on the page Wikipedia:Good article nominations, it is explained that the template is not required there either, but "may help you organize the critique". Two other review templates are suggested there as well: GAList and GAList2. The usage of this template in the review process should be a helpful suggestion, a tool to aid the reviewer, but not required. However as stated at WN:REVIEW, an explanation by the reviewer when publishing, in a post in a new subsection on the article's talk page, should be required. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thought this over a good while and changed to Support. Cirt (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 * 1) Should be optional. I find it somewhat useful to make sure I cover everything but I can see how some people consider it just a useless form to fill out.  However, if it does become mandatory, can I recommend calling it Form 14, Class B --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not WP. we are a news organization. WP has different standards for articles. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a vastly different standard, but just because a user did not fill out the template but there is proof that the user did a review such as c/e, does that make the review invalid? Is a review that used a template better as a result? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO it does not make a review invalid. I expect that people will sometimes forget to add the template. If it was published and the template forgot to be added, then the user who did the review can be contacted, or for verification another 'editor' can also add the template. With only the trusted users having 'editor/reviewer' status, I would asume to trust the person doing the review. But IMO its not grounds for un-publication (assuming the reviewer was a trusted user with editor status etc.). I am very against taking any article out of publication for this, for a minor typo or a single source etc. In some cases its required, but not to fix a small mistake. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Soft, prefer optional use. Durova (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) ; this would hinder both timeliness (critical for many users at Wikinews, evidently), as well as reduce the wiki-nature of Wikinews. It would also discourage participation, I believe.  Jade Knight (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This template is already used in the super-majority of reviews (probably something like 98-99%), this is just making the review process the same for every article to ensure reliability. Anonymous101talk 10:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak  Reviewing articles is not yet policy. When that is policy, by all means lets come back and revisit this, though I am not yet convinced this is good for everyone.  As an inexperienced contributor, I like to use it, but I see how some experienced editors find it clumsy and we should trust them with a 'looks good' review, especially for scoops and breaking news.  There is a cliché: 'trust but verify'.  I think that applies here:  let the experienced editor publish, but read the article yourself, and unpublish if you find they made a mistake.  From what I have seen, that won't happen often.  The template doesn't fit some specific circumstances: (a) if one contributor checks facts and POV, while another checks the other three things (b) a decision to pass a review and publish 'on balance' where an article is really outstanding on four checkpoints, but deviates from the fifth, say the style guideline, in a way the reviewer feels does not need to be fixed urgently (the style guide is great but lengthy, and a writer can have a good reason for deviating from it, so it should not be made mandatory by implicit inclusion in a mandatory template)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The thing here is that it is the established editors who are applying this. The template effectively is our editorial review process and we need it to maintain credibility. Personally I find it very useful as a checklist of things to review, but I probably have an advantage over you on things like the Style Guide - I drafted portions of it. Have you seen WN:ARTICLE and Howdy, a new approach to inviting people to get involved? These are under discussion on the Water Cooler. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clear that it should be a sequential matter, policy->template. Somebody try to push it into hen and egg matter.  If you voted in the template before policy, isn't pushing too harder, harder than threat of revoking privileges?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccas (talk • contribs) 02:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) per my comments on Wikinews talk:Reviewing articles --GW_SimulationsUser Page 10:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  This is a significant move away from wiki-style user-generated content.  It adds unnecessary bureaucracy to the publication process, and will discourage participation.  --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your reason is weak. This is Wikinews not Wikipedia. In order to ensure that the news is worthy of being published to avoid mistakes, copyright.. template:Peer Review is needed to ensure, infact this encouraged me to edit Wikinews, also creates less edit confilct and rubbish. -- Danger^Mouse (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, is Wikinews intended to be a wiki, or a collaborative online newspaper? The two are not the same…  Jade Knight (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it not a wiki? Just because you can't put any old shite on the main page? Nobody prevents you editing or creating an article, but we have certain standards. This is a non-argument that insults the contributors who pour a great deal of effort into the project. We want to be taken seriously, we want listings alongside credible news sources like AP, and we're not going to get it if someone can publish My dick On Wheels and have it show up on the front page. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're ignoring my point, and replacing it with a straw man: surely you realize that current oversighting requirements for publication prevent random new users from publishing vandalism at Wikinews. Jade Knight (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have a point. It is still a wiki. And get your terminology right, "oversight" is the process of removing a sensitive version of a page from the history so that nobody, including admins, can see it. This template codifies when to sight an article, and it ain't when it just 'looks good'. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * # While I myself use it, and do encourage others to use it, I disagree with its requirement and I agree with Jade Knight that it discourages participation and takes us away from the "wiki" aspect of what we do.  Maybe revisit when we've quadrupled in contributions and users... Cary Bass (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thought about this for a while and striking my vote of opposition. Swayed by Gopher65's arguments, who hasn't explained, however, why I just archived a not so good article by BrockF5 that was never unpublished from last December but oh well.  I'm still not ready to fully support it though. Cary Bass (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly does discourage participation in initial article conception, but I think that is the whole point. Articles should only be written by people who are capable of a minimum level of writing competency. A Wikinews article cannot by its very nature undergo a long editing cycle like articles on Wikipedia can. Articles on Wikipedia often spend *years* being written and rewritten, and so it doesn't truly matter if the initial attempt is a dismal failure. But on Wikinews it does matter. We don't have years to write and rewrite and copyedit an article, we have days, and often, hours. That means that the initial quality has to be high enough for an article to quickly be copyedited and factchecked. If the initial quality isn't high enough, the editing process will take too long, and the article will cease to be news. See User:BrockF5's articles for a good example of this. He is a good faith editor who has made a consistent effort to write local interest articles, but they are of such poor quality (in his case due to a language barrier) that the vast majority of them end up being deleted before anyone takes a crack at copyediting them:(. He became frustrated by this (obviously) and now rarely participates at Wikinews in any capacity, which is sad. I'd rather be upfront with people about our (necessary) quality controls, rather than backstabbing them after the fact, and pushing them away. Gopher65talk 01:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikinews is not Wikipedia.  But is Wikipedia successful?  Wikia is way off to be a competitor.  Whereas free/paid press release agencies have way more news at Google News than Wikinews.  I'm not trying to discuss what Wikinews is or is not.  We do need some success model and roadmap. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccas (talk • contribs)

thoughts on using a template
Random musing on using this template. One of the problems with using a checklist, is you only check things. Does this template discourage constructive criticism - as it really only provides a pass/fail list. No article is perfect, but as I look through all the peer reviews, very few, and almost none of the passed reviews, contain any kind of you could do this better next time. I think one of the most important parts of any review system is identifying our weaknessess. (and we all have something we can improve) Should we somehow encourage more criticism in reviews? Bawolff ☺☻ 11:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably should encourage both. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another optional tag could be added, similar to comments. If you want to enter a criticism, use it, else leave it blank. Prehaps there is a better word that could be used though. Critique maybe. Gopher65talk 02:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews:Editor link
editprotected

In the documentation section on "Use [Using Easy Peer Review]", I recommend replacing
 * make sure you are an special:listusers/editor,

with
 * make sure you are an editor,

as this links directly to an explanation of the term (and, by using a pipe, reads more smoothly). --Pi zero (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|link=|alt=|16px]] Done — Gopher65talk 00:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Documentation subpage
editprotected I suggest the documentation for this just be moved to a subpage, using documentation, so the template itself can be fully protected without requiring an admin to copyedit the documentation. --Pi zero (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Addendum: It seems very odd that the template itself is fully protected, but the subpages that contain the text — Template:Peer reviewed/Passed and Template:Peer reviewed/Failed — are not. --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 * ✅ ✅ and ✅ -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 06:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Change of cross symbol
The red X looks strange when used alongside the green check. I propose that we change the red X to File:Symbol_unrelated.svg instead. Thoughts? — μ 11:12, June 10 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty uncontroversial, and it looks okay! ✅ -- Sken   my talk 12:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * /me wants smilies/frownies :P --Brian McNeil / talk 12:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This has now been replaced by a large blue question mark. By all means thanks for that, it's been tickling me for a while during the last few weeks of the UoW round. Gryllida 12:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 * The change from File:Symbol unrelated.svg to File:Symbol question.svg was precipitated by WN:Water cooler/proposals. --Pi zero (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion
Before placing a request to edit this protected template, I would like to know if it would be a good idea to have a parameter for mentioning who created the article? I believe it would help some of us, who wants to read comments added by the reviewer(s) and also who created the article. (On a limited data connection, one would not have to open the history page.) acagastya 10:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm. We pointedly don't use a by-line; like most sister projects I know of, we don't consider any article "owned" by a particular user (even though in practice most of our articles have a single dominant author); we don't want to discourage others from touching "someone else's" article.  So we'd want to think carefully about how to implement such a thing.  Done well, though, it might be made useful, yes.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can contribute. (Should have framed the question in better way; emphasising creator). Well, one thing to add. I hope the parameter is filled automatically. If it is manual, it would actually be problematic when the article fails in review. acagastya 11:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
editprotected

Please remove the policy template from this template and move it to the documentation page, as the template itself isn't a policy. JJP...MASTER![talk to]JJP... master? 21:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed entirely from all templates. --Green Giant (talk),

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

title: Template talk:Peer reviewed


text:
Wikinews talk:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions

/Archive 1

Apprentices
What about creating a nominee-list? When a review session begins, the reviewers could ping these nominees on IRC, then the two could work in tandem on an article. Timetables will rarely match, but there would be a more visible path towards the reviewer bit. Intentions could be clearly marked by self-nomination and would not be cloudy after a request gets closed. (Experienced users could share how they avoid timeouts on IRC due to inactivity.) - Xbspiro (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems like it could work. --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this sounds like a good idea. The only difficulty might arise with access to notes on the reporters wiki. Otherwise, a list on a subpage of WN:FRRFP would be a way of identifying potential reviewers. Feel free to create such a subpage - if not, I’ll create it whenever I’m free. [24Cr][talk] 08:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


text:
User talk:HenrikLss

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Anonymous101talk 12:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:HenrikLss


text:
Wikinews:Requests for permissions

CheckUser and Oversight

 * To add a nomination for CheckUser:

 * To add a nomination for Oversight:

Removal

 * Remove means "support removal of permission".
 * Keep means "keep permission".

hu:Wikihírek:Javaslat tisztségviselők megválasztására ko:위키뉴스:관리자 선거

title: Wikinews:Requests for permissions


text:
Wikinews talk:Requests for permissions

Access to information
I am sure few read this page, but I hope the right people do.

I was just looking at the successful new admin nomination and it occurred to me that if I was still involved in this project I would not be able to check this individual out becuase most of my interactions with them were on so-called abandoned pages which are now deleted. The only people with access to this information are those who are already admins here.

So, how many of those who voted Support have access to admin tools here? Just curious.Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Those who are admins have access to admin tools. You can see who all are admins by visiting WN:A. •–•  16:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Acagastya I have no interest personally. I'll leave this up to those who are active on wikinews. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. Care to rephrase? •–•  16:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * out of eight voters in that nomination, five are already admins. -Green Giant (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Checkusers here at Wikinews
Hi all. Could we please try the procedure of electing checkusers for this wiki? How many votes from people with what eligibility criteria are required? Who would be nominated? Ping Green Giant, Acagastya. (Please also ping whoever else you would consider appropriate, I wasn't watching the wiki very closely for the last couple weeks). Thanks Gryllida (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (Note: forked from this discussion...) Gryllida (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, 25 votes, gry. •–• 02:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * CheckUser policy: 25 votes. - Xbspiro (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would be very difficult to obtain the required votes IMO. Is there a large number of cases that means there is a compelling reason for local CUs? --IWI (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Would not be seeking if it weren't, IWI. •–• 16:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't wish to appear sneaky..........
....so, to that effect: I've asked a Steward over at Meta to look around on our Request for Permissions and possibly take some actions accordingly. I'm not demeaning anyone's involvement, this is, afterall, a VOLUNTEER project....so, y'know....... --Bddpaux (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ....and, contacted a 2nd Steward there too -- maybe someone will answer....?--Bddpaux (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed vote change
In the "Requests for removal of access" section, the first sentence introduces a confusion that I think is easily fixed. I propose to replace the word Support with the word Remove because it is clearer what is being voted for.
 * Current wording
 * Remember: For requests for de-adminship or removal of other access rights, " " means "support removal of access rights", and "" means "oppose removal of access rights".

 * Proposed wording
 * Remember: For requests for de-adminship or removal of other access rights, " " means "support removal of access rights", and "" means "oppose removal of access rights".

We have two current votes where the Support template has been used, so the proposed change would be for future votes. Thoughts? --Green Giant (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds okay, . •–• 16:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it. Simple. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, sounds good. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 18:42, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

 * Done. --Green Giant (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Further proposed changes
flag Given the recent increase in RFP nominations, I propose that we change some aspects of the process. These are still rough ideas and would ideally apply to future nominations. I suggest we implement the following limitations in line with the page at m:Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements. Those guidelines apply to small wikis which need stewards to carry out the user changes but I think they provide a good base: What do you think? If there is a positive response here, I’ll create a formal proposal at the water cooler. --Cromium (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For requests for administrator:
 * Runs for at least 1 week.
 * Minimum of 5 votes.
 * At least 80% support.
 * For requests for bureaucrat:
 * Runs for at least 2 weeks.
 * Minimum of 15 (or possibly lower e.g. 10?) votes.
 * At least 80% support.
 * For both of the above I also suggest we formally write into the page that neither anonymous IPs nor new accounts (users not yet autoconfirmed) are allowed to vote.
 * For requests to remove a permission, I suggest they should run for the same lengths as above e.g. 1 week for de-admin and 2 weeks for de-bureaucrat. There should be the same number of votes and level of support for removal as above.
 * Finally, to make things a little easier and clearer, I suggest that future votes should be made on subpages similar to the ones I’ve created for archiving previous votes. This would have the benefit of keeping the edit history of the voters rather than just one edit by me (as is currently the case).
 * Since it’s been two weeks with no comments or objections, I’m going to update the policy with these limits. If anyone objects, we can have a discussion. --Cromium (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just getting to this: looks like a reasonable framework to me.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers! I’ve gathered this into a subpage that people should read before requesting a permission and also the above criteria. See WN:Requests for permissions/Policy. [24Cr][talk] 18:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer??
Why isn't Reviewer listed here??--Bddpaux (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's at WN:FR/RFP. Heavy Water (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikinews talk:Requests for permissions


text:
User talk:Rotemliss

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Rotemliss


text:
User talk:Lysy

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Hia
Just leaving a quick note to say that we appreciate your work so far:). Unlike Wikipedia Wikinews doesn't have a lot of contributors (yet), so it's always nice to have someone join up and stick with it for a while. Gopher65talk 14:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanna jump in and say welcome too. The Mind's Eye (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

privs
'''Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.'''
 * Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use.

 * We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

--Pi zero (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lysy


text:
Russian minister: South Ossetia reporting biased in Western media

August 10, 2008 Deputy  accused Western countries and media of anti-Russian bias and that the pro-Georgian position in the South Ossetia-Georgian conflict might restrain future relations.

Mr Karasin says "Western media is a well-organized machine, which is showing only those pictures which fit in well with their thoughts. We find it very difficult to squeeze our opinion in the pages of their newspapers," and "Just as it was 20-30 years ago, it remains the same today ... objectivity is not a typical trait of some Western journalists and television channels,"

The accuracy of Western media is also questioned by South Ossetia's press service who claims Western media outlets can't be trusted. Suslan Bekoev, South Ossetian committee for information and press, says "Only the Russian media and one Ukrainian channel have been filming in the breakaway republic. No western camera crews have been working in the conflict zone."

Despite the Bekoev's statement, photos from Western news agencies such as Agence France-Presse have been used in news stories about the conflict.


text:
Talk:Russian minister: South Ossetia reporting biased in Western media

Typo in title: it says "baised" but should say "biased." 71.50.80.77 19:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Reporting bias
Interestingly, the story about reporting bias has reporting bias itself. We shouldn't publish articles which only present one point of view. This article needs to have at least one phrase (and preferably more) explaining the opposing point of view, or offering opposing evidence. Otherwise it's nothing more than a rewritten press release. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Indeed. The article in its current form is not neutral and is a vehicle for Russian propaganda only. Lysy (talk) 07:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Facts?
I see nothing in last added sources that verify that western journalist operated before 10august inside South Ossetia. Can IlyaHaykinson provide sources to his statement?

 * is filmed outside Gori which is south of the South Ossetia, Georgia and is not proving Suslan Bekoev wrong. I looked thru all pictures on * and found no pics before 10 august verifying your claim. Though you might have right you need sources to verify.

I like to revert your edits but asking an neutral editor to look over it. international (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well then, leve some for sake of NPOV. international (talk) 13:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just now.
Russian minister ask in live pressconference where are the newscrews? international (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

http://streaming.visionip.tv/Russia_Today

Category
edit protected

Please add this article to Category:Agence France-Presse. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


text:
Template:Obituaries

An infobox for and its news. ''Are newer articles not showing? Refresh''

Customize this infobox .

eo:Ŝablono:Forpasoj es:Plantilla:Obituarios fr:Modèle:Nécrologies ko:틀:부고 정보 no:Mal:Nekrologer pt:Predefinição:Obituário

title: Template:Obituaries


text: Talk:Eight killed in suicide bombing in Algeria


text: Talk:Swiss mountain claims two lives

title: Talk:Swiss mountain claims two lives


text:
Comments:Russian minister: South Ossetia reporting biased in Western media

Strategic blunder led Georgia into S.Ossetia folly
An interesting article by Reuters. . I personally agree with analysts.--Beaumain (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

--

Would the United-states invade Canada entirely if it had sent troops to control a separated and unstable Quebec? I don't think it's a reason for invasion at all. --69.157.188.155 18:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Z_E_U_S
 * Lol, the United States invade Canada. I realize you were probably joking, but still, it made me laugh because it would never happen. However, I do think the US Troops would be better used in Georgia helping Georgia against the Russians than in Iraq.12.186.114.19 17:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Russian media is no better - they keep talking about "cities and villages levelled entirely by Georgian bombings", "tanks driving over women and children", and "Georgian troops with US badges" (WTF?). They had the audacity to say that Tshinvali shelling/bombing was worse than the siege of Sarajevo! Of course, no mention of the fact that Russian planes have also bombed the city (when Georgian troops were still in it), and denial of bombings of Georgian towns and villages - they keep saying that it's "just military objects" that are being hit, with not a single pic of a bombing on Georgian side. 81.5.106.115 18:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

(commercial plug) Looks like the Ruskies haven't heard of Wikinews! ;D (/commercial plug)  Fephisto (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Russians are know to control their medias by fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index#Worldwide_Press_Freedom_Index_Ranking) being 144 of 169 for the freedom of press, unlike most western medias which top on freedom of press index. So why are they saying we are biased when it's widely know as fact they bias theirs. It's not the best argument they could have thrown at us lol. --69.157.188.155 19:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Z_E_U_S

 * Well, it's not a surprise that US-controlled so-called 'Freedom' Press has placed US-controlled medias at the top of the list. It would be self critique otherwise. But I wonder why they ranked Russia 144, not 169. Maybe just to make some naive illusion of neutrality... BTW... United States: 48 place. 'United States (extra-territorial)': 111 (what's this?)79.175.2.194 19:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 * This is Reporters Without Borders, it's a Paris-based international non-governmental organization that advocates freedom of the press. And the united-states keep having lower and lower scores from year to year on their index ; 2002 : 4.75    , 2003 : 6.00 ,     2004 : 4.00 ,    2005 :9.50 ,    2006 :13.00 ,    2007 :14.50  . I wouldn't call the french the most pro-American country around and reporters without borders is widely considered neutral and objective. --69.157.188.155 20:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Z_E_U_S

 * Well, unlike most other european countries, France sometimes remembers that she is independent state. But basing in Paris instead of New York does not mean being controlled by France instead of US... Ok, surely stating "US-controlled" is over-simplification. But I think it's obvious that this organization is western-oriented, so it's biased just the same way as the western media is. I mean most of media - looks like there are several alternative sources. The same in Russia: there are several media sources who constantly blame russian government, both with and without the reason. 79.175.2.194 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Nice theory, 79.175.2.194, unfortunately it holds no water as Reporters without Borders is NOT US-Controlled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.164.13 (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Facts:
All of this could have happened without any bloodshed... But the elites are coldhearted people that decide everything in a room, without caring for the lives of people.

The two regions South Ossetia and Abkhazia are, since 1992, independent from Georgia. They could pass onto Russia, the same way Kosovo did to the US... But it didn't happen this way... Why? Because there is much to gain from both sides:

1. Saakashvili and his "Rose Revolution" are down... Since 2003 he has revealed what he really is... a fascist. He bans every protest, illegaly detains opposition members, controls all the media with the blessing of the "anglosphere". His popularity among the georgians is way down. The russians, of course, are anxious to set up their own puppet, and this terrifies the anglosphere. So, all of this, is serving in an attempt to rally all georgians to his side, against the Evil Russians.

2.It's no coincidence that fact that this happened about the same time as the beginning of the Olympic Games in China... China, hypnotizing the World with it's massive, beautiful, technological cerimony, with the theme "One World One [Communist] Dream", is doing propaganda at a time when the anglosphere has its lowest popularity around the World, facing a huge economic recession, as well as the US backyard going left-wing. They needed something to counter this... So, what better than showing all the western World how russians are Evil to make that point? They could force their georgian puppet (Saakashvili) to let the russians officially take over the two regions (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) peacefully... But they didn't, because they needed all of this to happen.

3.This is also a blessing for the russians... They're saving their population from the Evil US-backed fascist Saakashvili, and that theatrical plot, like in the West, works wonders... They're also showing the World, that this isn't communist Russia anymore, and that they do have the muscle necessary... The time when the anglosphere imposed and did whatever they wanted is gone. Russia is in da'house, and oh my, does it explode!

4.And, of course this situation gets solved before the future president of the US comes to power, thus, saving him to deal with this situation. Kosovo to the anglosphere, South Ossetia and Abkhazia to the russians (amidst other things aswell, more political than territorial). When Obama takes over the US, everyone (americans, europeans, russians and chinese) will hold hands, distribute kisses to all the foreheads available and pat themselves on the backs, on live TVs all over the World!! It will be a peaceful, beautiful World, with the all the status quos (western and eastern) preserved!!

Do you like this "democratic" World, where thousands of people die just to make propaganda?

Hurray for democraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacy!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.118.69 (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, you have a point. But in case of Kosovo, there were a number of states who recognized it's independence. Abhasia and South Ossetia have declared independence long ago. They are de-facto independent long ago. But no one recognize it because of high politics. Russia has known that if it will recognize, no one wlll follow, even allies (because thay are also afraid to worsen relations with US). BTW what is different with Kosovo? Say is't not bias... 79.175.2.194 21:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

 * How is it different to Chechnya ? The Russians should first let Chechnya go before they interfere in other countries. Lysy (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * THANK YOY LYSY someone has some brains in this worlds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDP3 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Compare Chechnya to South Ossetia - compare Kokoyty to Basayev. Ossetians do not kidnap people, do not raid theatres and schools, do not tie with Al Qaeda.--Beaumain (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to first reply:
 * There are also "US allies" that did not (and do not) recognize Kosovo independence. As you say, its "high politics". You're too nice... I call it hipocrisy. In what is Kosovo different? Almost nothing. I believe that even the US flag waving scene will have its version in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but of course, instead of the US flag, it will be the russian one "Oh, long live Russia, preserver of Peace and Life!!". HAHAHAHAHA!

 * Response to second reply (I assume it's directed to me, if it isn't I'm sorry):
 * Why should they let Chechnya go? So that NATO installs bases inside russian territory? The russians will never let Chechnya go... And for the international media, they do have a reason... they also have their "War on Terror", and they're fighting terrorists (which are being helped by Saakashvili, the same way the russians support georgian separatists).

reporting of South Ossetia conflict
The comments of the South Ossetian minister on the western media are quite correct. Indeed, your own reports are riddled with misleading statements and unverified "facts" presented as if they were true. For example, you headline one story "South Georgia wants ceasefire." You have not the faintest idea what the South Georgian government wants and nor have I. In this kind of situation, all participants can be relied on to make all kinds of statements for all kinds of reasons, and it is most dangerous to take any of them as fact. What you may know is what the South Georgian Government has said, and that is a very different thing. You should put everything from "wants" to "ceasefire" in quotes so I know you are reporting an attributed statement. It would also be useful if you then rang the Russian Press office and tried to explain to me the basis for their scepticism, so that I can decide for myself which I believe.

You also say the BBC has a film crew in the conflict zone. You cannot know this for sure, either. The only basis for such a statement can be that a)you have seen a filmed report which purports to come from a the conflict zone or b) the BBC says it has a crew there. If a) you should say "However, the BBC has broadcast several filmed reports it says are from a crew in the conflict zone and if b) "However the BBC says it has a film crew in Scrublisi, x miles inside the conflict zone." Then I will decide for myself what I believe. Kevin Atkins

 * Everything is biased... everything... Do you know why? Because we're all human beings, and all of them take sides... The only way to have a unbiased perspective of any situation, is by replacing humans by an AI programmed to be 100% impartial... and this idea is ridiculous (as much as it is expecting 100% impartial news made by human beings). I'm living in a country where the only perspective I'm allowed to see is the one CNN and BBC are saying: Russia is Evil, US is the force Good and Enlightment". On cable over here, for international news, there's only CNN and BBC... nothing more. All the media is controlled by politically motivated economical interests, either this be in the west or in the east. You will NEVER have a 100% impartial view of the situation... NEVER. And BBC is as reliable as me on this issue. They give on the TV what their politics say they should and that's it. It is completely irrelevant if the station has reporters on the site... Do you know how stupid this is? I have seen on TV, right now, footage taken in the early 1990's being presented as if it was recorded today, in 2008... This is how stupid things have become. That, and the "precious time" that idiot Saakashvili spends on live feeds to BBC and CNN, saying how good and "democratic" he is and how Evil are the russians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.117.206 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Adviser Was Lobbyist for Georgia?
Wall Street Journal say, John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, was a paid lobbyist for the Georgia. It explains MC's striking pro-Georgian sentiment. MC will lose many points on it. --Beaumain (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Wikinews Shorts: August 9, 2008

Concur. Published. —Calebrw (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wikinews Shorts: August 9, 2008


text:
User talk:Gcammaro

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Gcammaro


text:
Soul singer Isaac Hayes dies at age 65

August 10, 2008 Isaac Hayes ist verstorben Grammy Award and Academy Award winning musician and vocalist Isaac Hayes was found dead in his home in Memphis, Tennessee in the United States.

According to initial police reports, his wife found him collapsed near a treadmill exercise machine in their home after she returned from running errands. The Shelby County Sheriffs Department responded to his wife's phone call and took Mr. Hayes to Baptist East Hospital in Memphis, where he was pronounced dead at 2:08 AM EST. Hayes was 65.

Born Isaac Lee Hayes, Jr. in 1942, he became a noted soul and funk music artist, whose work also included singer-songwriter, musician, record producer, arranger, composer, and actor. His body of work includes soundtracks to the Blaxploitation films Shaft (in which he appeared in a cameo role), Three Tough Guys, and Truck Turner (acting in a featured role both films).

He also provided the voice of the character Chef on the animated TV series South Park, but left after the episode "Trapped In the Closet", which was a satire on the controversial Church of Scientology, of which Hayes was a member.

title: Soul singer Isaac Hayes dies at age 65


text:
User talk:201.250.34.227

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Mars
For new details start a new article please. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, do not copy it from other websites. Anonymous101talk 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:201.250.34.227


text:
User:Anonymous101/Main Page with popular articles

{|{|cellpadding="5" cellspacing="3" class="mainpagetable"
 * style="border: 1px solid #FFFFFF; padding: .5em 1em 1em; color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff; width:60%; vertical-align: top;" rowspan="3" |
 * style="border: 1px solid #FFFFFF; padding: .5em 1em 1em; color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff; width:60%; vertical-align: top;" rowspan="3" |

Got news and no computer? Call the Wikinews Hotline

+1-866-653-4265 (toll-free in the U.S. only)

+1-202-742-5918 (outside the U.S. - long distance)

 * style="width:40%; border: 1px solid #cfcfbf; background-color: #f0f0ff; height:1%; padding: .5em 1em 1em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;"|
 * style="width:40%; border: 1px solid #cfcfbf; background-color: #f0f0ff; height:1%; padding: .5em 1em 1em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;"|

Most popular articles
Stats updated hourly

Latest updates
Weather: Celsius or Fahrenheit (Updated every hour)

 * }

{| width=99.5% align="center" style="border: #000000 1px solid; background-color: #f0f0ff"
 * width=50% valign="top" |

Stories in development
 notcategory=No publish notcategory=Disputed notcategory=Published notcategory=Local only notcategory=Brief notcategory=Prepared stories namespace=Main suppresserrors=true ordermethod=lastedit
 * width=50% valign="top" |

Disputed stories
 category=Disputed notcategory=Deletion requests namespace=Main suppresserrors=true ordermethod=lastedit
 * }


text:
Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish dies at age 67

August 10, 2008 Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish died Saturday in southern American state of Texas three days after heart surgery at Memorial Hermann Hospital in Houston.

Darwish's poems are considered as an encapsulation of the Palestinian cause.

Palestinians in Ramallah went to the streets, some weeping, gathered around candles in the darkened streets and lit candles expressing their sadness.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared three days of mourning.

"The passing of our great poet, Mahmoud Darwish, the lover of Palestine, the pioneer of the modern Palestinian cultural project, and the brilliant national leader, will leave a great gap in our political, cultural and national lives," Abbas said. "Words cannot describe the depth of sadness in our hearts, Mahmoud, may God help us for your loss."

A day after his death many intellectuals and politicians in the Middle East gave their tributes in honor of him.

Ahmed Fouad Negm, a famous Egyptian poet, told Reuters "[h]e translated the pain of the Palestinians in a magical way. He made us cry and made us happy and shook our emotions, Apart from being the poet of the Palestinian wound, which is hurting all Arabs and all honest people in the world, he is a master poet."

"Mahmoud Darwish knew how to express the attachment of an entire people to its land and the absolute desire for peace. His message, which calls for coexistence, will continue to resonate and will eventually be heard", French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said in a statement.

Darwish will get the equivalent of a state funeral in the West Bank on Tuesday, the first since Yasser Arafat died in 2004.


text: User talk:72.138.229.67

title: User talk:72.138.229.67


text:
User talk:74.76.254.95

Hello there. Please don't create test articles or other articles that are not news, as we are Wikinews. If you wish to test, please use the sandbox. For more information about how to write a news article, see writing an article. Thank you. Gopher65talk 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:74.76.254.95


text:
Talk:Soul singer Isaac Hayes dies at age 65

Review
Article was marked with Review by, reviewed, factchecked, copyedited, and marked as Publish by. Cirt (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish dies at age 67

Please try to get the photo. —18:38, August 10, 2008 Mustafaahmedhussien (Talk | contribs)


text:
Comments:Soul singer Isaac Hayes dies at age 65

Don't worry, he'll be back in 75 million years.

A very sad day indeed. Please visit his site, www.isaachayes.com, to see that he was a very special man in his writings, his music and his charitable efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.86.17.125 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, scientology is adveritising "The way to happiness" on his site, and now on wiki news. That last comment was blatant scientology promotion. It doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.197.244 (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a big, gentle guy with an incredible talent. The world will miss Isaac Hayes but certainly "Theme From Shaft" and his very prolific writing for Sam & Dave will immortalize him forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.178.37 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's A Damn Shame
My Son Was 8 At The Time And He's A Really Big Fan Of Issac Hayes. THis Is For U Charles!


text:
Two small planes collide in Wyoming, USA, killing three

August 11, 2008

At least three people are dead after two small planes collided in a remote area of Wyoming in the United States.

The collision occurred between a Cirrus SR22 and a Cessna 172 near Rock Springs just before 12:30 p.m. on Sunday afternoon. The Cirrus was carrying two people, both of whom died, and was traveling from Polson, Montana to Rock Springs. The Cessna had one person on board who also died, but its destination is not yet known. One deployed parachute is reported to have been seen near the wreckage, but reports state it does not appear to have been deployed by a survivor.

FOX News quotes KSL in Salt Lake City, Utah as saying that debris from the collision was scattered over five acres in an area that made it difficult for emergency officials to get to.

The names of the deceased have not been released, pending the notification of family members.


text:
Talk:Two small planes collide in Wyoming, USA, killing three

Maybe it's just me, but the KXMB web site appears to consist entirely of blank HTML pages. Pending their sudden resurrection, or another source, I'm going to have to fail the review of the article. To be fair, I'll have a look for sources too. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 02:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weird. Works fine for me, and to make sure I just tried the current links. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The link works for me too. Maybe your browser either cannot handle or is set to reject *.asp pages? I don't know why that would be though. Gopher65talk 02:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If its FF, could be the various AD blocking addons which block it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm at work so I'm on IE. But every page on kxmb.com I went to, all I got was:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
 * Weird. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 04:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:American tourist killed in Beijing

Wow, just wow. I was just up at Bachman's the other day, I can't believe this happened.

I wish the best for his family and friends. (Zachary, not logged in) 75.168.206.23 02:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Several large explosions reported in Xinjiang, China

Anybody translates this into Chinese??


text:
Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080811

11 August

title: Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080811


text:
MediaWiki:Move-page

Rename $1

title: MediaWiki:Move-page


text:
Olympic highlights: August 11, 2008

August 11, 2008 August 11, 2008 is the third main day of the 2008 Olympic games, the below article lists some of the highlights. As a lot of the new records were in swimming events, this article has several sections on swimming races.

Women's 100m Backstroke

The Zimbabwean Kirsty Coventry set a new world record in the semifinal of the women's 100m backstroke with a time of 58.77 seconds.

Natalie Coughlin, who was representing the United States, finished in second place, while Nakamura Reiko finished in third place with a time of 59.64.

Men's 100 m breaststroke

The Japanese Kosuke Kitajima set a new world record and won the gold medal in the final of men's 100 m breaststroke with a time of 58.91.

Alexander Dale Oen won, who was representing Norway, finished in second place, while Hugues Duboscq of France finished in third place with a time of 59.37.

Men's 100m backstroke

The Australian Hayden Stoeckel set a new Olympic record in semifinal of men's 100m backstroke with a time of 52.97 seconds..

Matt Grevers, who was representing the United States finished in second place, while Ashley Delaney, who was also Australian finished in third place with a time of 53.76.

Men's 10m air rifle

The Indian Abhinav Bindra won the gold medal in the final of men's 10m air rifle with a score of 700.5.

China's Zhu Qinan, who was representing China, won the silver medal, while Henri Hakkinen finished in third place with a score of 699.4.

Women's 400m freestyle

Great Britain's Rebecca Adlington won the gold medal in the final of women's 400m freestyle with a time of 4:03.22 minutes..

Katie Hoff, who was representing the US, won the silver medal, while Joanne Jackson, also British, finished in third place with a time of 4:03.52.

Men's 4x100m freestyle relay

The American team of Michael Phelps, Garrett Weber-Gale, Cullen Jones and Jason Lezak won the gold medal in come-from-behind fashion with a world-record time of 3:08.24 in the Men's 4x100m freestyle relay final. Anchor Jason Lezak made up nearly a half-second deficit against French anchor Alain Bernard to win the race by 0.08 seconds.

France took the silver medal with a time of 3:08.32, an European record. Australia won the bronze medal with a time of 3:09.91, an Oceanian record.

The American team had previously broken the world record during the qualifying heats, setting at 3:12.23.

Lezak's leg split of 46.06 seconds is the fastest 100m freestyle ever performed. However, only leadoff legs in relay events can count toward the individual event world record.

Women's 58kg weightlifting

The Chinese Yanqing Chen set a new Olympic record and won the gold medal in the final of women's 58kg weightlifting with a score of 244.

Marina Shainova, who was representing Russia won the silver medal, while Jong Ae O, a North Korean, finished in third place with a score of 226.

O's score was one less than the score of Shainova, the person in second.

Women's 200m Freestyle

The Italian Federica Pellegrini set a new world record in heat six of women's 200m Freestyle with a time of 1:55.45 minutes.

Katie Hoff, who was representing USA finished in second place, while Agnes Mutina finished in third place with a time of 1:57.25.

Mutina was just 0.05 seconds behind Hoff, who finished in second place.

Medal Table
Medal Count update   Other countries

北京奧運每日簡報 (8月11日)

title: Olympic highlights: August 11, 2008


text:
User:Anonymous101/Main Page with popular articles/2

{|{|cellpadding="5" cellspacing="3" class="mainpagetable"
 * style="border: 1px solid #FFFFFF; padding: .5em 1em 1em; color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff; width:60%; vertical-align: top;" rowspan="3" |
 * style="border: 1px solid #FFFFFF; padding: .5em 1em 1em; color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff; width:60%; vertical-align: top;" rowspan="3" |

Got news and no computer? Call the Wikinews Hotline

+1-866-653-4265 (toll-free in the U.S. only)

+1-202-742-5918 (outside the U.S. - long distance)

 * style="width:40%; border: 1px solid #cfcfbf; background-color: #f0f0ff; height:1%; padding: .5em 1em 1em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;"|
 * style="width:40%; border: 1px solid #cfcfbf; background-color: #f0f0ff; height:1%; padding: .5em 1em 1em; text-align: left; vertical-align: top;"|

Most popular articles
Stats updated hourly

Latest updates
Weather: Celsius or Fahrenheit (Updated every hour)

This day in past news
This day in :

 * }

{| width=99.5% align="center" style="border: #000000 1px solid; background-color: #f0f0ff"
 * width=50% valign="top" |

Stories in development
 notcategory=No publish notcategory=Disputed notcategory=Published notcategory=Local only notcategory=Brief notcategory=Prepared stories namespace=Main suppresserrors=true ordermethod=lastedit
 * width=50% valign="top" |

Disputed stories
 category=Disputed notcategory=Deletion requests namespace=Main suppresserrors=true ordermethod=lastedit
 * }


text:
User:Anonymous101/Paralympic template/3

in of the  with a  of.

, who was representing, , while  with a  of.

Usage
'''A lot of editing will be needed after adding this template to an article. This is just a basic frame to start a section in the Olympic highlights'''

title: User:Anonymous101/Paralympic template/3


text:
Comments:Swimmer Michael Phelps of the U.S. wins first gold medal of 2008 Summer Olympics, breaks world record

Michael Phelps is an extraordinary athlete. He was born to be a star. He doesn`t have a diet and he eats as much as he can. His meals are about 10000 calories a day and I found out about this at http://www.projectweightloss.com. Good luck at the Olympics and make us proud!


text:
Roadside bomb in Turkey kills nine soldiers, injures two

August 11, 2008 At least nine Turkish soldiers were killed and two others injured after their military vehicle ran over a roadside bomb near a bridge in Kemah, Turkey. Originally, eight were reported dead, but one of the injured later died at a local hospital.

Governor Ali Gungor of the Erzincan Province has stated that after the explosion, the vehicle was attacked. Reuters states that militants with the Kurdistan Workers' Party were responsible for the attack and that military personnel were searching for more attackers.

The attack occurred in an area where Turkey has been frequently fighting militants of the PKK. Recently, the Turkish military launched airstrikes in Iraq in an attempt to disable the group. Turkey has been fighting militants of the PKK since 1984.


text:
Chloroform spill forces evacuation of building at Canisius College in Buffalo, New York

The Buffalo Fire Department and Police were called to a hazmat situation at Canisius College on Main Street after security reported that a one gallon glass container containing chloroform broke, spilling about a pint onto the floor of the college's science building.

According to communications by firefighters, who arrived at around 8:20 a.m. (eastern time), the glass container spilled on the third floor in room 318. As a precaution the building was evacuated and East Delevan road between Main Street and Jefferson Avenues was closed to all vehicle and pedestrian traffic while crews worked to clean up the spill.

At about 9:15 hazmat crews entered the room and began to clean up the chemical "using kitty litter" and fans to air out the room. They then sealed the material in a five gallon container. At 9:23 a.m. firefighters stated that they no longer detected the chemical in the air and began to pack up their gear.

Officials for the college assessed the situation and decided to keep the building closed for the day. "At 8:22am this morning the Public Safety Department and Buffalo Fire Department responded to a report of a chemical spill on the third floor of the Health Science Center. As the building is cleaned, the Health Science Building will remain closed today and reopen tomorrow morning," a college official said to Wikinews, adding they could not confirm the firefighter reports.

Firefighters believe the container containing the chemical was knocked over while someone working with maintenance was cleaning the floors.

There are no reports of injuries, but WKBW reports that the maintenance worker was taken to Sister's of Saint Mercy's hospital not far from the college for observation.

Chloroform is a common solvent used in chemistry laboratories. Minimal exposure can cause dizziness, headaches and fainting while prolonged exposure can cause liver and kidney damage. It is considered a hazardous material and environmentally unsafe. Banned as a consumer product since 1976 in the U.S., it was previously used in toothpaste, cough medicines and pharmaceuticals.


text:
Talk:Chloroform spill forces evacuation of building at Canisius College in Buffalo, New York

OR
Communications on scanner frequency 423.900 of the Buffalo Fire Department. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 * 8:48 a.m. (EDT) - E. Delevan shut down between Main and Jefferson. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9:16 a.m. - Hazmat enters building to begin cleanup. About 1 pint spilled DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9:20 a.m. - Maintenance tells fire that they knocked it over while cleaning floors. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 9:40 a.m. - Firefighters began to pack up gear. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

College Reply
A representative from the college has replied to me. Basically they are assessing the situation and have no further details. I sent the mail through scoop. Other trusted users/accredited reporters who would like to, or needs to see it may ask, and I shall send. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Further replied. Preparing a statement for website now. Cannot confirm firefighter communications. See above for same process of e-mail. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Final E-mail sent to scoop. Statement modified. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WKBW
Refers to the maintenance worker going to the hospital. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Jiang.x.n

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Anonymous101talk 13:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Jiang.x.n


text: Talk:Roadside bomb in Turkey kills nine soldiers, injures two


text:
Talk:Georgia withdraws from South Ossetia

Why are only Georgian officials quoted
and not Russian officials? Wishmaster68 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not firstleadmaterial anymore.
The article seems old or perhaps inaccurate/povish. Reportings about Georgian troops continued fighting and lately a shelling on a road with rocketartillery(?), clusterammo (?), (interfax) dont make Georgians peacewill trustworthy. And it is not included in article. If independent sources surface that will be a interesting article. international (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Olympic highlights: August 11, 2008

There is a HUGE mistake about Azerbaijan's flag... Kamome (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed it, thanks for pointing out the problem. Somone forgot to change the flags during the last update. Anonymous101talk 14:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Kamome

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! '''Also, thanks for notifying us of the issue with the flag. It has been fixed.''' Anonymous101talk 14:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Kamome


text:
Category talk:June 19, 2008

Please, add cs iw: cs:Kategorie:19. června 2008 Thanks. --Sevela.p (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Please add also he iw:
 * he:קטגוריה:19 ביוני 2008
 * Thanks, Guycn2 (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

title: Category talk:June 19, 2008


text:
Comments:Racial riots in the northern part of Montreal after police shoots an 18-year-old

They had all the reason to do so if you are a police man are police woman the use of a gun his only in extreme situation you have all other tools to use before getting down and shooting KIDS AROUND like they were some kind of practice routine its reality its not because its Montreal Nord that cops have to be shooting and after asking questions we are in 2008

Not my own opinion
Oh it's not my own opinion that cops had no reason to shoot. It's what the media said.

Personally, I still think the cops were only using legitimate defense. Though shooting may have been too much. Sorry for the pun, it's not intended, but it was overkill.

I disapprove the riots. Though I do understand that people may be shocked by the shootings the previous day.

Two fires were started basically right in front of my place. I thought on escaping to my cottage for the night, but then the second fire was light, and I deemed it somehow dangerous to go out.

Everything seems back to normal this evening, however there is a thunderstorm, so that might be keeping people inside... Let's hope it remains quiet.

CielProfond (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

 * "Police said a group of 20 young people surrounded the officers and some members of the group rushed toward them." - CBC.ca
 * Not sure how that is "had no reason to shoot". 3 cops were surrounded by 20 people who were either going to beat them or kill them. If you are mentally impaired enough to physically attack an ARMED cop, you deserve whatever happens to you, death included. Good riddens. The gene pool will be better off without you. Gopher65talk 00:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
Russia advances into Georgia from Abkhazia

August 11, 2008

On Monday, Russian troops advanced roughly 25 miles into Georgia. The Interior Ministry of Georgia said that Russian units had moved from the self-declared republic of, to the town of , within Georgian territory.

The has stated that the push into Georgian territory was necessary because of the continued attacks by the Georgian troops in. A spokesman from the Georgian Interior ministry said that Russian units had also taken control of the town of. "The[y] have advanced in dozens of and are now in ," said Shota Utiashvili, a spokesperson for the Georgian Interior Ministry, announcing the development.

Dmitry Medvedev, the President of Russia, stated that "the enforced detention of Russian citizens in Georgia is an unacceptable situation and in complete violation of international law," according to a press release published by the.

On August 11th, the Russian Defence Ministry announced that troops are leaving the military base in Senaki, and preparing to head back to Abkhazia. Georgian sources confirmed the announcement, stating that the base had been destroyed. According to Russian officials, Russia has no intention of occupying territory beyond South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Both the town of Senaki and Zugdidi lie in Georgia proper, outside the "security zone" around the region of Abkhazia. The border has been maintained by Russian forces since the 1990s.

There has been increasing pressure by foreign powers for a ceasefire in the. , the President of Georgia signed a European Union supported ceasefire, but it was not accepted by Russia. According to Reuters, Georgian troops did not observe the cease fire, since six helicopters bombed Tskhinvali on August 11.

The crisis broke out after days of fighting between Georgian forces and Ossetian separatist units. On August 7, Georgian troops launched an offensive against, the capital of South Ossetia region. The next day entered the territory of Georgia and bombed several targets in the country.

On August 10th, Russian began a  of Georgian port of  and landed several thousand Russian troops in  in western Georgia. threatened to bar Russian warships dispatched to the Abkhazian coast from returning to their Ukrainian base of if they engage in any military action.


text:
Talk:Russia advances into Georgia from Abkhazia

Russian Defence Ministry said it has no plans to attack Tbilisi. "We do not have and have never had any plans to advance on Tbilisi," Interfax agency cites a source in Russian command. Also Russian troops reportedly left Senaki military base. Russia says no plan to attack Tbilisi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaumain (talk • contribs) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing this out-of-context sentence:

 * The advancement of Russian troops follows the declaration by Russia that if Georgia refused to remove their troops from South Ossetia, that Russian units would move into Georgia.

It confuses South Ossetia with Abkhazia. The Russian ultimatum concerned Abkhazia. Lysy (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceasefire
In one sentence the article says Russia rejected the ceasefire, and in the next one that Georgia did not observe it. How could a ceasefire be observer if one of the sides rejected it ? Lysy (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
Flight lands safely with help from mobile phone text messages

August 11, 2008 In November 2007, a twin-engine 30-year-old Piper aircraft lost all electrical power on board shortly after departing from Kerry airport in Ireland for a flight to Jersey. Without any electrical power, the pilot was unable to use his radio to contact air traffic control. He was briefly able to re-establish contact with the tower using his cell phone, but that was also disrupted.

The report into the incident published on August 6 revealed how a quick-thinking air traffic controller in Cork started sending directions to the pilot by text message. With this assistance, the plane, with five people on board, landed safely after the undercarriage was lowered manually and air traffic control visually confirmed that it was down. Prior to lowering the undercarriage, the first officer noticed that the nose wheel had failed to retract fully and was actually at half its travel.

"In this incident the positive and proactive initiative of the ATC controller, who, on realising that mobile audio communication from the pilot was intermittent, quickly switched to texting his instructions instead", said John Hughes, an air accident investigator who reported on the incident. "This contributed to the safe resolution of the incident and, for such, the controller should be commended for his actions."

The pilot, aged 39 and with 1,900 hours of flying experience, succeeded in climbing to an altitude of 6,500 feet without any problems, but needed to communicate to ensure a safe landing. He originally attempted to contact Kerry airport, and after that failed he made attempts to contact Cork.

The report found that the loss of electrical power was due to the aircraft's alternators failing to maintain the required voltage, probably due to the battery voltage being insufficient to excite the alternator's windings. The relay may have been in poor condition after having been subjected to a heavy load following take-off, possibly contributing to the incident.


text:
Template:2008 Beijing Olympic medal count/sub

 * - align="center"
 * width="40px"|[[Image:.svg|border|35x18px|]]
 * width="24px" bgcolor="ffd74a"|
 * width="24px" bgcolor="cecbce"|
 * width="24px" bgcolor="ceae9c"|
 * width="24px" |
 * width="30px" |
 * width="30px" |


text:
Template:Aviation

An infobox for and its news. ''Are newer articles not showing? Refresh''

Customize this infobox .

ar:قالب:طيران fa:الگو:هوانوردی ko:틀:항공 정보 no:Mal:Luftfart tr:Şablon:Havacılık bilgi kutusu

title: Template:Aviation


text:
Bill Cotton, former Controller of BBC One, dies in hospital age 80

August 11, 2008

Bill Cotton, who was formerly the director of BBC One, has died in hospital at the age of 80. In 1998, he won the "Academy Fellowship" BAFTA award. Cotton died in a Bournemouth hospital.

He was first the producer of a TV show 1956, when he produced the Billy Cotton Band Show. He went on to produce Six-Five Special in 1957 and many more shows at various points in his life.

His first TV show after Six-Five Special was Play Your Hunch, which was produced in 1961. This was followed by The Dave Allen Show, then Call up the Stars.

Cotton was the director of light entertainment for the BBC between 1970 and 1977. He became the Managing Director of television for BBC, prior to his retirement in 1987. He became a member of the Order of the British Empire in 2001.

In addition to producing many films, he was due to star in the 2009 drama Gangster Kittens. Filming for Gangster Kittens has completed, so the drama will still be able to be broadcast.


text:
Talk:Flight lands safely with help from mobile phone text messages

Quote
Quoted sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph is a sentence fragment. Subject with no predicate. Predicate appears to come as a second quote, a separate sentence at the end of that paragraph. Is the quote accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.82.34 (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The quote is verified as accurate. It is in the accident report listed in sources. Any grammatical errors are on the part of the author, though I must admit, I do not see the problem that you see. --SVTCobra 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my knowledge of English grammar isn't sufficient to understand this issue but I'd thank the user for raising this and would invite them to explain further. Cheers. Adambro (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the "initiative" is the subject of the first sentence, but it doesn't have an associated verb (which is a necessary part of the predicate). Therefore we never find out what the "initiative" is supposed to have done (at least, not until the next sentence) making it a sentence fragment. At first I thought this came from one of the secondary sources splitting it up incorrectly, but I checked and it is broken up in the original report. Not sure what we should do, since it is in the original source, but it's a pretty big error once you notice it. Plus having the attribution between the two sentences seems to make it worse. the wub "?!"  13:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Bill Cotton, former Controller of BBC One, dies in hospital age 80

Broadcast report Referes to info on the BBC News Channel. (Only Breaking News: Bill Cotton has died and a short summary of hid life) Anonymous101talk 19:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)