text:
User talk:Brian McNeil/Wikinews workflow

Impetus
The drive to put this together comes from meeting people at Wikimania and talking about Wikinews. I was ashamed when Sue Gardner said she had seen inaccuracies in Wikinews stories that had been there until old enough to archive. There is little comfort in that being followed with a comment that Wikipedia can live for weeks or months until an inaccuracy is spotted and corrected. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Sue is the one who has the newsroom experience I have emailed her, and the others present at the meeting we had to highlight this discussion. I only raised two points in the email, mainly to keep it short enough to allow answers to the questions raised in five minutes or less - and thus make answers more likely.
 * The obvious question from this discussion is how much closer does the proposal take us to the workflow of a traditional newsroom.
 * Second up, was obliquely related, and the one many, many people are keen to know about - FlaggedRevs. What we need there, based on my understanding, is the DPL extension enhanced to be aware of FlaggedRevs. All I am asking for there is a commitment from Sue to prod Brion to get one of the dev staff to look at an as-yet-unsubmitted bugzilla request to update DPL.
 * This second part should be a no-brainer for all contributors, but the devs often err on the side of caution and look for community consensus for a change. I'm sticking the poll here as this page seems to be getting attention and input, but if anyone feels it would be better on WN:WC then don't hesitate to move it.
 * I think RSS can wait, the existing full-feed extension currently isn't up to WMF standards.

Proposed enhancement to the DPL extension
Section moved to technical sub-page of the Water Cooler

ready - increase focus on this stage and drive to get there
Of the stages listed, I think ready is the one where our attention should be focused. I think ideally we should be aiming for all articles to reach ready, rather than going straight to publish, and then be reviewed by another contributor but this is of course a problem whilst the community is small and so articles might sit at ready for a while. I would agree that current reviewing tends to focus on formatting rather than facts and this needs to be expanded. Currently however, it is difficult to determine which of the many sources is being cited for a particular fact. I think we should consider ways of implementing inline references as used on Wikipedia although I don't think these should be visible to readers, sources should remain listed in the current way just with some wikicode indicating which each fact came from.

Regarding reviewing of ready articles, I think we should have a template to put on the talk page with items to check listed like is used on Good Article nominations on Wikipedia, w:Template:GAList. I would of course suggest that an important check would be that fair use images are appropriately used with a source and rationale, and that any images from Commons pass a basic test of having a source and license, and not appearing to be blatantly copied from a random website etc. Adambro (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Image checking would fit neatly into the revised flow at the ready stage. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added some checkpoints for images and other decorations at the revised ready stage. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Focusing on the ready template and driving fact-checking and copyediting towards this stage is the best way to go, IMO. I don't think inline references is the best way to go with this (perhaps notes on the talk page for specific portions or quotes as I mentioned below), but here is an idea. Why not just make it required that individuals who have been a major contributor to an article or the article's creator cannnot add the publish tag to that article? So the article creator or major contributor must at the most change the tag from develop to ready when they are done working on it, and seek out a third-party user to review the article and that person changes the tag from ready to publish. I often do this for articles I have created/worked on as a major contributor - I have sought out independent users either via IRC or on a talk page and requested that they review an article I wrote/contributed to and then change the tag to publish. Why don't we just make this required instead of a recommended step? Cirt (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an issue with this in that people do not read sources and fact-check. In the past I likely have been as guilty of this as anyone, but what tends to happen between ready and publish is making sure the article reads well, some grammatical and spelling corrections, perhaps an image or an infobox gets added, and then it is published.
 * Wikipedians seem an ideal group to target as potential fact-checkers and copyeditors. The drawback being there is not the same urgency on Wikipedia to perform such tasks. For our existing level of output we could get by with recruiting five or six globally distributed fact-checkers from Wikipedia and we would not face any loss of articles. With a Factchecking project page having a DPL they could log in when they have time, check the project page, pick an article, and verify it. Perhaps a half hour of their time is required. What is disappointing from my presentation at Wikimania is I do not seem to have persuaded more people to try Wikinews. The one clear new recruit I can identify is User:Majorly. If you look at his talk page, and contributions, you will see he has put up two new articles. His reaction to working on Wikinews? Yes, as I said in my presentation, it is easier than Wikipedia, and - the hook to catch people - there is more of a sense of achievement because you see your contributions up on the front page. Recruiting Majorly wasn't from the presentation, but more from evangelising throughout the conference, this is why we need to work on other items such as brochures, posters, and leaflets. Do we have people with the skills to put together posters? Who can write Wikinews-based advertising copy? Can we provide tutor/student material for inclusion in Wikipedia Academies? There are a multitude of things that need to all come together to really spur growth of Wikinews. This effort to improve quality is just one of them. I believe if we go with all the other to-do items without this then when we do have a large enough contributor base for this to be essential then inertia will see it shouted down and we will continue to fail to meet our obligations to our readers. There is a lot to do, a lot to discuss, and some of it involves hard decisions. This is the push towards Wikinews 2.0. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Inline references as an aid to fact-checking
For a long time I have strongly opposed use of inline references within Wikinews articles. They break the flow of a news report and are an invitation for people to leave the site and read what we have used as a source. The current visual appearance of your average Wikinews article is generally accepted, and a good presentation of the material we have.

However, the idea of "hidden" references for specific facts does have merit as an aid to fact-checking. This is a clear advantage in terms of trying to improve the reliability of our reporting, but it is an extra burden on those producing the articles. I am sure it would not be difficult to set up a simple template as opposed to the <ref> style, and have the contents of the template not appear in the rendered version of the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes, footnotes—as in the Wikipedia-style—would make it easier for fact-checkers, but with our overlapping multiple-source requirements it would also make for all kinds of sentences that end [1] [2] [3] and similar. If we are modeling our-selves after established news sources, none of them have footnotes. Also, I think it makes attribution rather burdensome. But as one who does do fact checking, there are clear advantages. Sometimes, I am reading source after source, to find a quote that is in an article. --SVTCobra 23:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, in that particular case - sources for certain specific quotes could be cited on the talk page of the article in a note (instead of in footnotes in the article itself). Cirt (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts
How will the creation of new stages encourage the work to be done? If no-one is fact-checking during the "ready" stage, why would they do it if there is a fact-check stage? I think a better approach would be WikiProjects. Wikiproject_factcheck and Wikiproject_copyedit, and then we recruit people to those projects who are interested in those specific tasks. And the journalism professors can assign their students to the projects, where they will be directed by regular contributors to useful activities that are consistent with the workflow of a professional news agency. Um, just some thoughts, I haven't really been following the debate. - Borofkin (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am open to any suggestions on how we can convince people to perform these tasks, but right now we are failing on a quality basis because they are not being done. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, the way it would work is that when an article is published, it would be tagged "fact check", and the fact check tag would be removed by members of Wikiproject_factcheck. But it wouldn't delay publishing, it just means that the published article would be tagged as not yet being fact-checked, which I don't have a problem with because it would be true, and we have nothing to fear from the truth. - Borofkin (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikinews Wikiprojects are notorious for just dying off and getting abandoned. I have little faith in such an approach working. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify/expand on that, a project page for fact-checkers may be appropriate. The primary purpose being to list volunteers who are prepared to carry out the work and outline the tasks they are expected to carry out. In the interests of keeping as open as possible, it would natually likely require a new template to be added to the talk page of an article indicating who carried out the fact checking, and any issues with it - such as use of foreign language sources that could only (poorly) be checked via use of an online translator. I suggest factchecked as the template, with a big tick on it.
 * One consideration that I'm not sure I can clearly explain - but will try to - is that factchecking may involve adding additional sources to get round issues with foreign language sources and poor translations. I don't think we should be deliberately shopping for sources that agree with what Wikinews has in its article, but if you're stuck with something in Hebrew you likely can't even read the article title or assess if it is an editorial piece. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The main advantage of the project approach is that projects tend to produce "todo" lists, and I think that is what is needed - a list of published articles that haven't been fact-checked. - Borofkin (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Having given this more thought, it is likely the most logical setup. We have the factcheck template, with its own category, via a DPL we list those requiring attention on the project page. Fact checking could be set up right now, one aspect I think may be tricky for this is where foreign language sources are used. As we go along we would need to start identifying which online translation services were best for specific languages. In some cases, the fact-checking people may need to look for additional English sources to verify the article.
 * Where people list themselves for this, I would strongly advise listing the timezone people are in to give an indication when they may be available for the task. Within the task there obviously would be a mini-workflow, tagging on the talk that you have started fact-checking, and when complete, replacing that with a template that fills out a checklist. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

''How will the creation of new stages encourage the work to be done? If no-one is fact-checking during the "ready" stage, why would they do it if there is a fact-check stage?'' - said it best, above. We should first try to make sure that fact-checking gets done during the ready stage. I have a different idea I will suggest, in the above subsection ready - increase focus on this stage and drive to get there. Cirt (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the validity to this argument. You want to continue with a status-quo that isn't working because essential aspects of the required process are being missed. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not want to continue with the status quo - I am merely pointing out that adding more steps will not affect the behavior of others who will simply continue to go straight to publish. See also the comment below by - as well as other comments by  and .  Cirt (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then there is always a policy we can make of it (not publishing right away), and I am sure there are ways we can prevent that with the developers help, if necessary. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ready is misleading, it presupposes that the article has been checked for factual accuracy, copyedited, and only requires minor work. In most cases this is miles away from reality. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Original reporting
I feel a little ashamed to show my face here, I'm a major part of the problem singlehandedly as a regular contributer who bypasses 'ready', often leaving typos etc to be fixed. None-the less, reading it over it seems to work, but you want input on OR against the new system. It seems obvious to me; 'factcheck' should check OR notes and identify if it seems plausible, as well as check that background info is correct per cited sources. The rest of the worflow behaves much as normal. Or am I being oversimplistic and missing an obvious problem? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I was writing the below section at the same time as you wrote this. :) --Brian McNeil / talk 11:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Workflow with Original reporting
The main page for this really avoids the issue of original reporting. How do we fact-check this being the key issue. Interviews generally have transcripts, and emails can be shared where input from sources has been sought in this way, but certain items may not be so readily verified.

 * What are the cases where we can provide guidelines for checking OR?
 * What are the cases where the OR needs to be from a trusted contributor?
 * Is being a trusted contributor enough?
 * Do we need to set standards for OR notes?

--Brian McNeil / talk 11:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Can we have someplace central to forward emails to? At the moment I think forwarding to an admin is considered apropriate, but a lot of the people doing OR are already admins, so that essentially means it never goes anywhere. The same if they're accredated. Something a little like OTRS would be great for that. I think I remember a similar issue raised once on WC; anyone remember? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the proposal to be worked on and put to the WMF for assistance in improving Wikinews is to transfer to it the wikinewsie.org domain. The flexibility this would give over hosting on GoDaddy would allow for a factcheck-l@lists.wikinewsie.org mailing list. If we consider this alongside Borofkin's comments then somewhere on-wiki you would have a list of people who were prepared to carry out the task, and they could subscribe to the list.
 * Issues arising from this are privacy of source's personal information. Which brings it back to an issue of trust. A list open for anyone to subscribe to would require that those forwarding mails which are part of OR scrub some personal details. Alternatively we need people to be trusted to be discrete and not share/leak source information, which may mean an invite-only list. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just today (well, July 24 per UTC) we had this interesing Orignal Reporting example. The accredited reporter thought it was confirmation if he e-mailed his own notes to himself! You can view the discussion here: Talk:Marathon runner addresses Toronto, bringing attention to autism. --SVTCobra 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that, my gut reaction was, "god! what a pompous ass!". --Brian McNeil / talk 09:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If we get the embargoed wiki up and running, this would be a good place for the OR notes, if someone doesn't want to post them in the collaboration page. In the mean-time we could perhaps require that they get e-mailed to scoop. Either way I think that we really need to get tougher on OR notes requirements, even for accredited and trusted contributors. The current policy is fine, but we don't enforce it enough. There are to many "I was there" type of notes. (Also, I don't particularly like OR claims for reading press releases or watching TV or listening to radio.) I am sure "real" news rooms require notes be given to the editor and that the reporters don't tell their editor-in-chief "welcome to the world of journalism". Without being tough on this point, regardless of how much the Wikinews community trusts the contributor, I don't think outsiders will view us as credible. --SVTCobra 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the issue with the case you're referring to is approaching the project with a competitive mindset as opposed to a collaborative one. I wonder if that is totally missing the point of Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

archive
This isn't working at the moment. If we want to be credible, we have to archive things properly. I am at a loss as in to how we force this to become 1) up to date and 2) reiable ad efficient, but it must be done and is getting largely ignored. Thoughts? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The key thing is that it is an unseen and thankless task. I did over 3,000 articles until the process totally burnt me out. I suspect we may need to resort to admin-privved bots again just to minimise chances of overlooked vandalism. I think we have something like archived-unreviewed, if we have a smarter bot that says, "this article was edited >36 hours after publication and more than 5-10 characters were added or removed it might tag archived-review-requested. Implementation of a more strict workflow may reduce the load on people trying to do archiving. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * On a side note I think the purged listings of articles needing archiving at the bottom of WN:ARCHIVE is helping out a little bit, from time to time I see people archiving off of that list and I do that as well - it is less backlogged than it used to be. Cirt (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Exemptions and process circumvention
As has been highlighted in the similar discussion on the Water Cooler, there can be cases where a major news item cannot wait to go through the full process. Figuring out how we work with that may be a thorny issue, but is one that needs discussed. Can we keep it positive and make suggestions on how we can minimise exceptions? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The breaking tag, is one tool that we already have available. It provides some disclosure to the reader that the information is in flux. However, we will have to use it much more sparingly than currently seems to be the case. Some stories have been posted with the breaking tag when all it seemingly means is that it is the first that particular contributor heard of it. If this tag is appropriately used, it could serve this need, but how do we control that? If someone nefarious wants to circumvent process, they will quickly learn to use it. --SVTCobra 23:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, breaking is where the process circumvention can come in. The tag has been horribly abused by some contributors - I've even seen it on obituaries; what do people expect? The dead to rise up?
 * This will become less of an issue once we get FlaggedRevs because tagging as breaking will not get past whatever editorial control process we have using FlaggedRevs. A good thing to do is watch the BBC site and see how their use of a breaking news label works. You will see a very brief piece indicating that an event has occurred and limited details are available. At that point I believe they have an "all hands on deck" call and several reporters will be tasked with gathering information and providing a more comprehensive report.
 * The London bombings is a perfect example of where there would be a circumvention of the process. However, that would initially just be to provide notice to readers that we know there is a developing story and are working on it. This has the advantage of drawing in contributors who want to help flesh out the story, and preventing multiple copies of the article being started. Realistically, where we get situations like that and ten or more people are all working on one article a lot of the fact-checking and copyediting gets done by anyone who sees a new detail and wonders where it came from. If we consistently had that number of contributors per article, and that desire to provide factual information I do not think this proposal to put a more formal workflow in place would be needed. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

factcheck/copyedit
I do not think that these need to be their own stages - rather they should be rolled into develop or ready - ready could be a larger stage during which the factchecking/copyediting takes place. I agree with, who commented: I don't think we need to add extra steps to the review process. I think that in principle factchecking and copyediting obviously must take place, but I do not think they need to be delineated as separate steps with their own tags in the workflow process. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is where we will have to agree to disagree. I do not trust people enough to believe these tasks will be carried out if not explicitly required. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not necessarily disagree - I just think we first have to agree that people are not even waiting with the ready tag and soliticing others for review for that step - so adding more steps will not make any difference. Cirt (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is certainly an issue that some people do not pass their articles through ready, but more importantly there are people moving articles from ready to publish without checking the sources. Right now I believe it would be trivial for just about any well-established contributor to create a plausible but total piece of fiction and cite Goatse as a source, mark it as ready, and some sucker would publish it. This may be overly cynical, but it is what I see. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In my (admittedly limited;)) experience so far, people just want to get their stories published as soon as possible. Add that to the fact that if a story sits around for every one day with with a ready or develop tag it will almost certainly never get published, and it is easy to understand why people try and rush their stories. As others have said, this is obviously in part because of the tiny wikinews community; the number of people contributing to this site is simply insufficient for the workload.

 * I'd say that people probably won't bother using additional tags, given that even in my short time here I've seen numerous people go straight from develop to publish. I'd suggest that instead of making additional tags that may not be used, just change the ready tag to factcheck. Copyediting is pretty much intrinsic to factchecking, since you have to carefully read both the article and its sources. This won't stop a few nuts from going straight to publish, but it will keep regular users from feeling like their articles are buried in a quagmire of redtape. Gopher65talk 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with - that sounds like a most excellent idea.  Cirt (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well we need, if we ant to have credibility among bigger sites and such, some kind of editorial process. That is the main reason why we are not indexed in google news and everyone else is. That is why the blog is in google news, and we aren't. We might be small, but we need a process. Everyone else has one, and yes I know we are different, but having one is part of being credible. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, way back in like 2005, there was a small template that was used on discussion pages or something that said the article went through a "community review." I have only seen it skimming random articles, so I have no clue what the template name is. Also, we have enough people that it does not take a day to go through and just do a quick skim and look at sources in articles. If i can whip up an article in five to ten minutes, it should take just as long, if not shorter, to do a review. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Sometimes that is true, sometimes it isn't. I just did one that I intended to skim through, but it ended up taking me an hour and a half to read through all the sources and their linked material, find an appropriate picture, and read up on the background enough that I could understand what was going on well enough to factcheck and copyedit unfamiliar words and names. Now maybe I should have left that particular article to someone better acquainted with the subject, but I don't know that it would have got done otherwise (again, small community). Gopher65talk 22:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That does not negate from the fact that we need a process. We go virtually unnoticed because of a simple process that can be easily resolved. We are not only missing out on contributers, but readers. As it stands, we only get noticed when someone else somewhere talks about us or other media write about a story we ended up having. That includes media and et al. But even if it might take a little more time, in some cases, the fact that you had to c/e, or etc, shows we need and should have some kind of process. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you there. What do you suggest other than simply adding a factcheck tag? Gopher65talk 03:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why factcheck and copyedit can't be added to an article at the same time. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So why don't we go with 's idea or something along those lines - abolish ready and instead use a combined factcheck/copyedit tag - and make it a required stage? Or rather, instead of all of those, roll them into a tag called review stage or something like that? Cirt (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename Ready to Review
I think as a preliminary stage we could move the Ready tag to Review - because in essence the article may or may not be "ready" at that point, but in practice the tag is used to ask others to review the article. We could spruce up the message that appears in the template itself - this could be the main stage where factchecking and copyediting take place - and the article would sit in that stage until all those tasks were done by a third-party editor. Cirt (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In any event, at the very least the name should be changed to "Review", because that's really what this stage is at the present time. Cirt (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As a preliminary step I changed the bolded phrasing "This article is marked as ready for publishing." in Template:Ready to ready for review. I also moved an optional parameter out of small formatting, for greater emphasis. So by using that parameter, we could use the current template to yield:

Cirt (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We can change templates etc, but that still isn't going to stop someone from immediately publishing something, whether its ready or not. We would have to somehow make it a requirement. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly. But it is a step in the right direction. Cirt (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Started a poll for this renaming at Water cooler/proposals. Cirt (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Disappointed
This time last week I was sat in Alexandria, the Wikimania conference was finished, and the cumulative fatigue from getting by on 2-3 hours sleep each night was catching up on me. I'd nearly fallen asleep in the morning keynote when they dimmed the lights, but kept through it and got the print edition on paper and copied in time for the morning coffee break. I can't recall what sessions I had to miss to do that, but it had become apparent fairly early on that I was not going to get to everything I wanted to attend if I was going to be the project evangelist. Despite being issued a media pass, I can honestly say Craig Spurrier really only attended as an interested Wikimedian. I believe a look at his Wikimania-based contributions will back up this opinion. It's a joke that anyone has the nerve to put "very active contributor" next to a vote for his membership on the Arbcom.

However, I was happy with what I had achieved at the conference. I had not gone for myself, but for the project. A lot more people knew about the project, and I had been given some great opportunities to do some networking. I'd been given feedback and encouragement by attendees from the four corners of the Earth, staff and board members had listened to my concerns and gone on to offer help for the project. From past experience I can testify that trying to get this level of attention and support by email is impossible.

In the time since I got home on Sunday night - as well as getting Internet access in a cafe in Cairo airport - I have tried to share what I learned, and what opportunities are open to us. This proposal was a key part of that, as such it is a drive to significantly improve the quality of Wikinews output, provide a documented editorial process, and open the door to collaboration with journalism schools.

Some of those much newer contributors who have gone out of their way to drag this proposal down a dark alley and give it a good kicking couldn't even find it when told it was flagged. Disappointed? Perhaps I should be disgusted that people involved themselves with policy and proposal and don't know where to look for a list of flagged discussions. That's before I even mention the other flagged page I set up. NOBODY has commented on that, and there are offers there from the WMF to spend money on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I can not speak to others, but for me I do know how to find something if it has been flagged, in this particular instance I just forgot for a moment and blanked on that. For that I apologize. This page has been quite active lately and getting some discussion from multiple different individuals, and I think that is a good thing. We are moving forward in a good direction and the important thing is not to get discouraged but to continue to have a polite and professional dialogue. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The proposed alternative kills stone dead any possibility of getting a journalism school from anywhere in the world involved in the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Which proposed alternative? Cirt (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the "not creating 2 new templates that wouldn't be used except by a few die-hards" bit, well, *points back a few words*, that's why. Unless you can change the software to make the use of those templates MANDATORY, any such action will be utterly useless (and personally, if that can be done, I'd be much more apt to support new templates, cause then they'd get used).

I don't think anyone here disagrees with your assertion that wikinews needs to have a better defined workflow, with emphasis on accuracy... but you appear to be suggesting that the whole of what needs to be done is to modify the template usage! In my view, what you are suggesting with these new templates can be just as easily accomplished by modifying the existing ready template. People appear to use that one at least some of the time, so that would be a good start. As for fixing wikinews in a more substantial way, well, if you (or anyone else) come up with a real, workable suggestion on how to fix wikinews (as we all know it needs to be fixed), then I'm sure everyone will leap on it. But adding additional unused templates is not the way. That isn't even a bandaide solution; it isn't a solution at all. Now personally, I can't think of any realistic way to fix wikinews, but that may just be a lack of imagination on my part. It seems to me that the concept of an open wiki isn't entirely compatible with the concept of a secure, reliable, immediately available newsource. But... I could be wrong. I hope I am:P.

Note: I use the word "you" in the following paragraph a fair number of times, but I am not speaking of any individual person, but rather wikinewsies in general. To reply to your other point, about people not knowing where the flagged articles links are, wikinews has a god-awful layout, and an all but non-existent help section. I found the links to flagged articles a few days ago, but that was just because I have randomly browsed just about every (non-article non-talk non-user) page on this site, just to see what was there. And you know what I found? Templates with no associated help pages, rife with spelling errors. No acceptable help pages for new users. No explanation of basic site functions, or of the appropriate use of those that are listed. If I didn't have years of experience on wikipedia, I'd have been totally lost here. A new user would be clueless, and would probably give up due to the unnecessarily steep learning curve. I've heard several people speak about new users not knowing things, but you make no apparent effort to create a new-user friendly environment. Gopher65talk 18:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have been trying for months, maybe even a year for an embargoed Wiki "to fix Wikinews." Brianmc implemented the wikinsewsie e-mail address. I started the Wikinews Reports blog. We have been trying and trying, but it seems that there are contributers who do not want to see changes in Wikinews or the policies no matter how much we change proposals and such.

 * Yes templates can be made mandatory. We already have a few in the starting an article area such as and the date template. So it is doable. The point is, all these proposals throughout the last few months have been workable. I am just getting tired of people saying NO constantly, but then don't give anything in return on how to make the proposals better, and if they did, still would say no.

 * If we don't change things, then really we miss out on millions of readers and contributers...all because all we need to do is make a few small changes. Its not like we don't already do these things, we just don't make them required. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we are all in agreement that we should somehow require a hashed-out review stage and not allow direct-to-publish. Cirt (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Gopher65, thank you for the pointless rant. Flagged Revisions will allow the enforcement of the proposed changes, or will you oppose that too? --Brian McNeil / talk 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Discounting someone's comments and calling them a "pointless rant" is inappropriate and impolite, and not the best way to foster Recruitment and Retention. 's first edit to this project was July 6, 2008. We should be more polite and welcoming if we expect users to stay and contribute here and write more articles and contribute to more areas of this project. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "pointless rant" was a bit strong, but a great deal of the thrust of his comment was wholly unrelated to this discussion and a massive complaint about poor organisation of project and help pages. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - but it is related to the Recruitment and Retention subsection of User:Brianmc/Request for Foundation assistance, and has said on IRC he may be willing to help make some of the help pages on Wikinews more user-friendly, which is something we definitely need.  Cirt (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There was no offer to help in the lengthy comment that I gave a gut response to. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

(argg for edit conflicts, heh) I should have explained better why I was ranting about help pages and the like. Many of the complaints have been about people not properly constructing articles, and not following a reasonable procedure (even those procedures currently set out), and thus damaging wikinews - but I think that this is simply the result of new users not knowing any better. I believe that proper organization of the site and flushed out help files would go a long way toward increasing not only the level of participation, but the quality of participation by users. As for your last comment, I feel that anyone who is here has automatically indicated their willingness to do what they can to help fix the problems that they see, so I didn't feel the need to explicitly state that. Gopher65talk 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In any case, and this is again more relevant to User:Brianmc/Request for Foundation assistance than to here specifically, if you could give us even just a preliminary list of help pages needing improvement in a subpage in your userspace that would be helpful and something that we could try to work on. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * My apologies for being so curt Gopher65, but I remain deeply disappointed that this proposal has not been taken up. It makes Cirt's offer on my talk page to pursue a journalism school's involvement pointless. No professor will be convinced there is merit becoming involved here if we do not break down the flow from start to publish into more discrete stages. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, I'm not getting any work done, so I really have to be quick here. Before I start, I just want to say that I am in no way attempting to be rude, however I come across, nor am I meaning to say that I am necessarily completely right about what I am saying. This is strictly intended to be constructive criticism, and, like all such things, is up for discussion.

 * While I was getting ready for bed last night, I think I hit upon my problem with this proposal: it is too broad. Too unspecific. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some reason. When I see a policy proposal, it needs to be split into a few parts:

 * 1) What's broken,
 * 2) Why it's broken,
 * 3) What specific problem/issue this causes,
 * 4) What solution(s) is(are) being provided.

 * I think parts 2 and 3 were where I was snagged when reading this proposal. No specific problem was given, but the solution was very specific. Far to specific and narrow to fix the very generalized nature of part 1. Reading your posts, both here and on several other pages, I think I've pieced together at least a little bit of what you had on your mind (probably not all of it though, cause I can't read minds (unfortunately)):

 * 2) Why it's broken — The poor workflow described in part one means that wikinews does not qualify as a decent teaching tool for journalism schools. This means that wikinews is not benefiting from a potentially huge number of high quality contributors.

 * 3) Specific issue to be fixed — Improve workflow in order to draw in journalism professors, and their students.

 * If this had been the proposal, I'd probably support it. Is this what you had in mind Brianmc? I honestly don't mean to nitpick here, but remember, I don't know what you have in mind. Your proposal leaves a great deal out, and doesn't say what it is all about. It just says, "The wiki is broken, and here's what i want to do about it", without saying WHY. In any consensus based environment, like this one, the WHY of the matter is the most important part. Without that, other contributors can't get a handle on what you're trying to say, and your proposal will be shot down, due to a simple lack of communication on both sides.
 * Gopher65talk 16:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the "what's broken" was fairly apparent. The former head of CBC.ca regularly checks Wikinews and told me, to my face, she had seen inaccuracies remain in place on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is certainly a problem. A giant problem, with many different aspects. As I said, that's like saying "wikinews is busted. We need change". Ok, now what *specific* things need to be changed, and what will each of those *specific* changes do? It is absolutely apparent that wikinews has inaccuracies, but that is a generalized issue, not a specific problem that can be analyzed and solved. So, I looked at the solution that you had provided (the template changes), and, based on your other posts, I found a specific problem that that change could help to solve. A template won't magically solve the enormous, overwhelming accuracy issue, but it might help solve one little part of it, which is "lack of journalism student contributors, due to poorly defined workflow". That's why this accuracy issue need to be dealt with in little chunks. Changing templates is one chunk, and OR accuracy is another chunk, and I'm sure there are a myriad of other small problems, each of which contributes to the overall issue. Each problem needs its own well defined proposal. Gopher65talk 17:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Significant progress is not made by taking steps as small as those of a millipede. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 * You and Dragon have said several times that you are frustrated with the lack of community consensus with your proposals. Isn't *some* progress better than none? And I can't see it taking any more time to look at 5 small, specific proposals instead of one, giant, extremely vague proposal, like those you are submitting now. I actually think it would be faster! Consensus on small proposals tends to be reached nearly instantly, while big proposals tend to take a long, long time to hash out, if they move ahead at all. It almost always makes more sense to break a(ny) problem down into manageable chunks instead of trying to (unsuccessfully) deal with it all at once. This is how businesses get their problems solved. They do it this way because it works, and things get done. Gopher65talk 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, I strongly object to this proposal being described as "extremely vague", it isn't. It clearly lays out what should happen between an article being started and it being published. The description of the existing process highlights that ready is not working, and that aspects of the work required there are being skipped or overlooked. It seems counter-intuitive to label an article ready when it has not been fact-checked or copyedited; the common sense assumption for someone new to the project seeing an article with that tag is that it is a way of posing the question, "is it good enough?"
 * The additional two stages, factcheck and copyedit, make it clear that there are specific tasks that must be performed. Within a content management system (Eg Confluence) that a traditional newsroom would use, technical measures will enforce use of such steps. MediaWiki does not have the ability to do this, it relies on the community enforcing the process; that, in and of itself, is not a reason to dismiss the proposal.
 * In hindsight, the appropriate approach would simply to have been bold and implemented the proposal without first seeking community input. It not just, as you imply, a route to collaboration with journalism schools, but a plan to make volunteer contributors do due diligence. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Who objects?
In reviewing this discussion I count quite a few people commenting on the proposal, but only about three outright opposing it. That's not a majority of the Wikinews community. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If we are specifically commenting on factcheck and copyedit as separate additional steps to be added to the process as opposed to inherent in ready (or review at some point) then I do not think that is the best way to go, though I may change my mind at some point if we can get a much faster and seamless process going that won't slow down the article-process too much (an Flagged Revision may change the dynamic of this as well). But I think to gather formal opinions this should be a discussion/poll at Water cooler/proposals, and not an informal discussion in userspace. Cirt (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is supposed to be a discussion, and a way to improve the proposal etc. This is not to slow down any process, but to give WN more credibility and opportunities. Simply changing a template or a few words in it is not changing a process. Flagged revisions is something we need, and has had community consensus for quite sometime. They are here and will be implimented and used as soon as the developers can get around to it. Flagged revisions is not up for debate, at least not here. I really don't think having an editorial process is slowing anything down, its improving what we do. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are right, and perhaps it won't slow down the process all that much, but if we are attempting to gauge input from the community as to object/support at this point then IMO further discussion should take place at Water cooler/proposals. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Moushira~enwikinews

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! --Brian McNeil / talk 10:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how 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!

Oh Thanks for the note, dear. Moushira (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Moushira~enwikinews


text:
User talk:80.13.58.27

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! --Brian McNeil / talk 13:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:80.13.58.27


text:
Nationalised UK bank Northern Rock appoints new chief executive

July 23, 2008

British bank Northern Rock has appointed the vice chairman of Barclays as its new chief executive. After 26 years at Barclays—the last two of which were as vice chairman—Gary Hoffman will replace Andy Kuipers. Kuipers, who has been with Northern Rock for 20 years, will be replaced at the beginning of October. Last September, Northern Rock suffered the first run on a British bank in over 100 years, and was forced to become nationalised. Today, Hoffman stated he would return the bank to private ownership "as a thriving, stable business". Some of his past roles include chairman of banking and chairman of Barclaycard. In his new role, he is expected to cut 2,000 of the 6,000 jobs provided by the company in an attempt to be able to pay back money owed to the Bank of England. He is to earn £700,000 per year, plus £400,000 in compensation from losses due to his moving. Including a bonus, he is expected to earn £1.5 million in his first year, making him Britain's highest paid public servant. Among other tasks, he will be working to pay back the £25bn loan Northern Rock got from the Bank of England by 2010, and reducing its mortgage lending from £100bn to £50bn.

Northern Rock hit problems in September 2007. Issues in the mortgage market and public concern over the stability of the bank saw queues form with people keen to withdraw their funds following emergency support being provided by the Bank of England. With share prices plummeting as a result of issues in the United States sub-prime mortgage market, an unprecedented crisis struck one of the UK's largest banks. By February 2008, the decision was taken to move the bank into public ownership and it was nationalised. Today's appointment is the first step on a road to returning the bank to private ownership with significant measures required to cut the bank's costs, repay loans from the Bank of England, and transform the institution into one which is attractive to the stock market.


text:
User talk:58.179.3.200

Hello. Please don't blank user talk pages. If this was your user page, please log in. --SVTCobra 15:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:58.179.3.200


text:
User:Ramac

Hi, I am syop on italian Wikibooks.

See my user page on meta.

title: User:Ramac


text:
User talk:Ramac

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! --Brian McNeil / talk 15:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how 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:Ramac


text:
Comments:Rhode Island man arrested with highest DUI blood-alcohol reading ever

This guy was even drunker: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/01/04/drunk-bulgarian-050104.html


title: User:Adolphus79


text:
Chinese police offer 300,000 yuan reward in double bus bombings

July 23, 2008

Chinese police are offering a reward of 300,000 yuan (US$43,900) over twin bombings on morning bus services earlier this week. Two people were killed in the attacks in Kunming.

The explosions were both on route 54 and were caused by small nitroamine devices. Fourteen were wounded. The reward is triple the amount initially offered after the Monday attack.

The first explosion was at 7:10 a.m. at Panjiawan Bus Stop on West Renmin Road. The second was on a bus at the intersection between Changyuan Road and West Renmin Road at 8:05 a.m. The second bus was close to its last stop of Minshan.

Police are now asking anyone who used a route 54 bus between 6:00 and 8:30 a.m. that day to come forward.


text:
Talk:Rhode Island man arrested with record blood-alcohol reading

Accuracy
I know the story says it is only a claim of record, but this recent story seems to indicate that it is not even close: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/01/04/drunk-bulgarian-050104.html (found on the comments page). However, I also have noticed that there can be a lot of confusion with BACs some countries measure it as % by volume and other as % by weight. Since alcohol is very light compared to the other components in blood, I believe it makes a relatively large difference. --SVTCobra 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The record claimed in the title is "highest DUI blood-alcohol reading". The record claimed in the body claims highest blood-alcohol reading. Guess we'll have to check out which record is being claimed. Wikidsoup (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm one article says "highest ever recorded in Rhode Island for someone who wasn't dead" and another "the State Police say is the highest blood alcohol count in the agency’s history". Wikidsoup (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK made some adjustments to article. Wikidsoup (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


text:
China to establish protest zones for Olympics

July 23, 2008 Beijing has set up three designated zones throughout the city for protesting the 2008 Summer Olympics. Beijing Shijie Gongyuan (Beijing World Park), Zizhuyuan (Purple Bamboo Park), and Ritan (Temple of the Sun), three public parks, have been selected as the locations for the "legal" protests. "They are all close to the city proper and the Olympic venues," stated Liu Shaowu who is the Director of Security for the Beijing Olympics organizing committee. Demonstrators must first receive licenses to picket and rally before protesting. "The police will safeguard the right to demonstrate as long as protesters have obtained prior approval and are in accordance with the law,” Mr. Liu said. Chinese law states the citizens must apply five days prior to demonstrating, stating slogans to be used, number of participants, and overall topic of protest.

The protest zones have been considered to be nothing more than an international show by certain human rights activists. "This is only a show for foreigners," said lawyer and legal rights activist Jiang Tianyong. Xu Zhiyong, another legal rights advocate with a more optimistic stance on the zones stated that, "as a first step toward opening up space for dissent, it is appropriate."


text:
User talk:The Mind's Eye

'''If you leave me a message on my talk page, I will respond on my talk page. If I leave a message on your talk page, I will respond on your talk page. That way conversations can be kept together in one place. Thanks, The Mind's Eye'''

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! --Brian McNeil / talk 18:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how 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!

Hello
Reply given here. I apprecaite your concern and the note on my page! 77.127.253.51 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Please respond to my concerns about the recent title change here. I apologize in advance if my tone was a bit self-entertaining. 77.127.253.51 20:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * p.s. I changed the template usage some, hope it works for you as it works for me. 77.127.253.51 20:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please actually take further discussion to the article's talk page, to have a more central place for discussion. Cirt (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Ok. I replied on the article's talk. 77.127.253.51 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied again. 77.127.253.51 00:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

 * And again :D, glad I could persuade you some. 77.127.253.51 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead article change
Sorry didn't check when it was updated, just checked the story date, I'll be more careful. Hello32020 (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama speaks in Berlin
You published this when the article said he spoke yesterday, that should have been fixed first. Also, it referred to his Paris visit in future tense when that happened last Friday. I fixed these references and republished. --SVTCobra 22:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel Free
As I briefly stated in a round about way on one of the policy talk pages, feel free to disparage, adopt, or modify anything that I say. I don't claim to be right, I just want a discussion to happen, so that we get a halfway decent policy. I'll be busy for the next few days, so I won't be on much. :-) Gopher65talk 15:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just replied to your message on the proposals page. Sorry that took so long. Been busy. Still busy;). Gopher65talk 23:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Heyo
I'm at about "70 percent happy" with the current state of the article I just placed as develop and I'm thinking that, considering the lack of information on the story, it's probably as close to a publish as they can get minus, possibly, a few categories. I wouldn't mind a review on it and despite our disagreements, I trust that discussion with you on concerns would be done in a calm and productive manner. Anyways, feel free to make mild to medium changes and to publish. I'll give it another look later today and discuss if there's anything that feels like it should be discussed. Cheerio, 77.127.253.51 16:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Plesure working with you. Cheerio, 77.127.253.51 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad timing
Is midnight here, heading to bed very shortly to suffer the excess temperatures. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Heyo
Left you a note on the Fatah article. Cheerio, 77.127.253.51 00:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Another comment.
 * p.s. I guess I agree that I neglected to mention that I had a majority part in releasing the previous article. Cheerio, 77.127.253.51 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Replied. I appreciate your concerns and think I responded accordingly even if we disagree. If you see my point, feel free to change the title a little. If no, then no hard feelings :) Cheerio, 77.127.253.51 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Also, If you have time, would you mind reviewing (and publishing if appropriate) Olympic highlights: August 9, 2008 Anonymous101talk 15:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Georgia wants ceasefire in Ossetia war
I hope you didn;t mind me adding to Georgia wants ceasefire in Ossetia war. I'm sorry if you had prepared something else to add or me addding to the article caused you prblems. Anonymous101talk 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, great. Anonymous101talk 16:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

REe: Chad article
Thanks. Anonymous101talk 06:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Award

Thank you so much for the award A101. The Mind's Eye (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

GAH!

 * Template:2008 Beijing Olympic medal count

I got confused and reverted you. I accidentally deupdated medal numbers then restored. the WTF was aimed at my own self not you.

As for TT, I do not see what does not work.

-- Cat chi? 19:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Trindad/Tobago doesn't work so I had to change to Trinidad and Tobago. The Mind's Eye (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay and why doesn't "Trindad&Tobago" not work? It looks fine to me. -- Cat chi? 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the way it looks, but when you click the blue link it takes you to a uncreated article whereas Trinidad and Toabago takes you to the actual article. The Mind's Eye (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A single redirect fixed the issue. Is this enough? I can create another extra optional parameter for this if you like but the template is very complicated as is. -- Cat chi? 21:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That works fine for me. The Mind's Eye (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

United States Senator Lieberman to speak at Republican party convention
✅ Anonymous101talk 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for merging Bolt's article with the Olympic highlights article. MarkRobbins (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

re
I do mind because its a completely different story.--William Saturn (talk) 03:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * okay, thanks for understanding and sorry about the tone I used in the last message. The story is about Chet Edwards and how strange it is that he is actually being considered as a candidate. He's probably not going to be the pick but the fact that he is being considered is very newsworthy.--William Saturn (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * the newsweek article was written without confirmation from edwards himself, that happened today.--William Saturn (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * the title as it is is completely legitimate. it was reported by the associated press that edwards is on obama's shortlist. the quote by edwards is in the article.--William Saturn (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * good. it adds to the article. --William Saturn (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't understand your last edit.--William Saturn (talk) 04:01, 23 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.

 * Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. 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) 22:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:The Mind's Eye


text:
User talk:200.55.183.49

Welcome
Welcome!

200.55.183.49, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions 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:
 * 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
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

 * I would recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikinews, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information (not even an e-mail address), and there are many benefits of having a username.  (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)

 * When using talk pages (the "collaboration" tab at the top of the page), or the comments pages (tab "opinions"), please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Brian McNeil / talk 18:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:200.55.183.49


text:
Trio found with €440 million of cocaine receive a total of 85 years imprisonment

July 23, 2008 Three people who were found with €440 million worth of cocaine have been given a total of 85 years imprisonment. Perry Wharrie and Martin Wanden were given thirty years imprisonment, while Joe Daly was given twenty-five.

The trio were involved in a cocaine smuggling operation which took place near Cork, a region of the Republic of Ireland.

According to evidence heard by the court, Perry Wharrie, an Essex, England resident, was given a life sentence in 1985 for murdering a police officer.

Judge Ó Donnabháin made the following comment when sentencing the group:

To described them as mere storemen or carriers is wrong, these men were members of a gang. They knew at all stages what was going on, they hooked up for this crime. There is no evidence that any one of them was the leader but they were definitely very willing lieutenants.

Gerard Hagan, from Liverpool, England, a person who was involved with the group, pleaded guilty at the start of the trial. He said that he was in possession of €13,000 worth of drugs, and intended to sell them.


text:
User talk:203.20.35.101

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! --Brian McNeil / talk 20:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your edits
If you persist in making edits to articles which are factually inaccurate and do not match the sources you will be blocked from editing. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:203.20.35.101


text:
Comments:Rhode Island man arrested with record blood-alcohol reading

amateur.

- This news piece isnt all that relevant nor it reports a record nor it provides accurate information. 0.5 does not kill you. 0.4 does not put you KO automatically.

There has been recordings of much higher ratios in europe and in america aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.95.59 (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

holy fuck!
i blew a .18 when i got arrested and i thought that was a lot!

wow!
what a party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.20.242 (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What a legend .491 percent blood alcohol level, and still manages to drive. good on ya mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.241.209 (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome cloud
Legendary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.152.80.8 (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow that guy was lit. I wonder what kind of shape his liver is in or even what kind of liver he has for that matter. Geez he must have super internal organs all the way around. Or he's about to collapse at any moment. Good looking out to the officers who spotted that guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.161.236 (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

how is this a record? record for rhode island? world records for Eastern Europe go above 0.7-0.8% (for still conscious people) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.118.251.61 (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

TIME
The .4+ is remarkable in and of itself. The fact that he blew that number at the State Police Barracks in Scituate makes it even more noteworthy. You have to figure he was probably at the accident scene ((% in Prov.) for at least 30 minutes before they carted His Drunkenness away and it's a 20 minute drive to the barracks where they tested him. Also figure he was probably 10 minutes out from his last drink at the bar before he plowed into the road sign. This roughly means his .4+ alcohol level was documented after his liver had a full hour to reduce it from whatever it had been at the end of his last drink. Think about that.


text:
User talk:Anwer Pasha~enwikinews

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! Cirt (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Please stop
Please stop recreating Closed head injury Locked in syndrome Pakistan. It is not news and not appropriate for this site. If you need help writing a news article or figuring out how to contribute to other articles, please let me know. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anwer Pasha~enwikinews


text:
User talk:202.125.143.73

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! Cirt (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:202.125.143.73


text:
Two nuclear leaks in two weeks trigger security and safety reviews in France

July 26, 2008 On July 7 and again on July 23, there were accidental leaks at the Tricastin Nuclear Power Center in France, which is a collection of sites in four different communes: Saint-Paul-Trois-Châteaux and Pierrelatte in Drôme, and Bollène and Lapalud in Vaucluse.

Along with two other minor incidents on July 18, it has prompted the Commission for Independent Research and Information on Radioactivity (Criirad) to order a review of security and safety. Already last week, Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo said the ground water near all reactors should be tested and the state of waste storage sites assessed. In the latest incident, a hundred workers were exposed to radiation. They all work for Électricité de France (EDF), which runs the Tricastin facilities with Areva. This marks the largest number of workers to be collectively contaminated in French nuclear history.

The leak was at reactor number four, which was shut for refuelling. Workers were exposed to Cobalt 58 dust which escaped while maintenance work was being carried out. Sensors noticed a rise in the level of radiation and the workers were then evacuated.

"Seventy of them show low traces of radioelements, below one fortieth of the authorized limit," EDF said. A spokesperson later raised the number to 97 people. Criirad warned, however, that the limit was "not the level from which risk begins but the maximum acceptable level."

"We have an alarm system which is meant to protect the staff from contamination via the atmosphere,” said Tricastin director Alain Peckre. "If a problem is detected, the alarms go off, our security procedures swing into place and everyone is evacuated from the building."

A union representative from Confédération générale du travail (CGT) alleged that EDF was reducing maintenance and increasingly using sub-contractors, putting workers at risk in exchange for profitability.

"We spend 1.5 billion euros a year on ensuring our plants are in optimum condition," countered an EDF spokesperson. "Safety is our top priority over and above providing electricity to the network. Since our power stations were set up, 80 per cent of maintenance operations on reactors that have been temporarily turned off are carried out by external contractors. They are the most competent to maintain and repair specific parts of the reactor, some of which they have taken part in building."

The previous incident, on July 8, involved a 74kg spill of liquid containing unenriched uranium. Thirty cubic metres of water overflowed while a tank was being emptied. Subsequent test showed that contamination may have occurred for years.

Local wine growers Coteaux du Tricastin AOC have already become concerned about the negative association with "Tricastin" and have begun considering changing the name of their Appellation d'origine contrôlée (AOC).

"It's only a question of image as nuclear and food don't mix very well in consumers' minds," said the AOC's president, Henri Bour, to The Daily Telegraph. Nuclear authorities "didn't understand our move, doubtless not wanting to admit that the nuclear industry's image is perhaps not perfect," he added.

"Nuclear was progress and we wanted that. We thought people were competent. Now we ask, were there previous incidents we weren't told about?" said local resident Roger Eymard to The Guardian.

Autorité de sûreté nucléaire (ASN), a nuclear safety authority, has already criticised Areva for its handling of the first incident. ASN complained of poor communication with authorities and unsatisfactory security measures and operational procedures.

The leaks have occurred just as President Nicolas Sarkozy has been promoting the European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) as a solution to rising energy costs and global warming.

France has the second largest nuclear power network in the world and generates over 80% of its electricity through nuclear power.


text:
Sarkozy

__DISAMBIG__

title: Sarkozy


text:
Bus crash in Victoria, Australia injures twenty, some critical

July 24, 2008

A bus crash in Victoria, Australia has injured at least 20 people, two of whom are listed as critical. One victim is reported to be still trapped in the wreckage.

The accident occurred between a bus and a semi-trailer on the Princes Highway in the Traralgon area around 10:50am AEST. The La Trobe Valley Busliner bus was traveling east when it collided with the back of a heavy haulage truck.

Those critically injured are being airlifted to a hospital in Melbourne. Others are being transported by Ambulance to La Trobe Valley Hospital in Traralgon.

SES crews are on scene, along with St. John Ambulance and fire crews.

The eastbound lanes of the highway have been blocked by police and traffic is being diverted.


text:
User talk:71.186.171.56

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! Majorly (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:71.186.171.56


text:
Two large earthquakes rattle Japan, Russia

July 24, 2008

Two large earthquakes have shaken areas of Japan and Russia within 11 hours.

Before dawn on Thursday, at 0:26 local time, a strong earthquake jolted eastern Japan. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that its moment magnitude was at 6.8 and that its epicenter was 30 km (20 miles) east-northeast of Morioka, Iwate Prefecture, 485 km (300 miles) north-northeast of Tokyo, also where its tremor was observed.

Japan's Fire and Disaster Management Agency announced that as of Friday noon, 158 were confirmed injured, no one dead or missing, and 63 houses were confirmed partly destroyed. Government officials are en route to the area to assess further damage. According to Japan Meteorological Agency, this quake arose 108 km (65 miles) under the ground in the Pacific side of Iwate Prefecture. The focus must be inside the Pacific Plate which subducts the land plate. There was no fear of tsunami, and no major aftershock was observed by Thursday noon.

In Russia's Kuril Islands, which also felt the Japan's quake, there occurred another large earthquake on Thursday afternoon, at 14:43 local time. The USGS estimated its moment magnitude was at 6.4 and its epicenter was 240 km (150 miles) south-southwest of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy.

ITAR-TASS reported that there were no casualties or destruction or tsunami threat by Thursday evening.


text:
Palestinian official newspapers: Israel uses super rats against Jerusalem Arabs

July 24, 2008

The Palestinian Authority's official news agency Wafa says Israel is using poison resistant rats to drive Arab families out of their homes in the Old City of Jerusalem. The information is released under a report by Dr. Hasan Khater, secretary-general of the Islamic-Christian Front in Jerusalem, and cites an unnamed Arab resident as saying that he had tried to eliminate the rats with various poisons, but to no avail.

Several Palestinian newspapers, are claiming Israel's goal to be increasing Arab suffering in Jerusalem by turning their lives into a "real tragedy" with Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat al-Jadida stating that the enhanced rats are scaring cats away with their size and aggression, and that traditional methods of dealing with them have been unfruitful. Dr. Khattar's report, however, has been noted by Israeli news agency Omedia for neglecting to explain how the rats were allegedly taught by Israel to distinguish between the city's Arab and Jewish population.

The Wafa agency, which is controlled and funded by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's office, has in the past accused Israel of using wild pigs to drive Palestinians out of their homes citing Palestinian 'victims' quoted as saying that they had seen Israelis release herds of wild pigs, which later attacked them.

Gidi Schmerling, the spokesman for the Jerusalem Municipality, responded that the story had no connection to reality and the report was "pure fiction".


text:
Talk:Bus crash in Victoria, Australia injures twenty, some critical

Time
Can we confirm the time? --RockerballAustralia (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged by ABC Radio National - Was broken by them in 11AM Audio news on ABC Radio, and announced that it had happened "10 minutes before they came to air" with the bulletin. This would place it at 10:50AM AEST. I will look for a fixed source to confirm exact time. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


text:
Turkish planes bomb PKK targets in northern Iraq

July 24, 2008

Turkey's said in a statement posted on their website that warplanes bombed thirteen  (PKK) targets overnight in northern Iraq.

In what the statement termed an "intensive strike," Turkey targeted PKK hideouts along the Turkish frontier which is known as a major stronghold for the PKK. The statement claimed, "All thirteen targets were successfully hit," though there were no estimates on casualties, they were said to be forthcoming.

"Operations as part of the fight against terrorism will continue with determination both at home and abroad," said the military's press release. Turkish planes have been bombing northern Iraq intermittently since December 16. Just last February 240 militants were killed and dozens of PKK hideouts and camps were destroyed when the army conducted a ground offensive against the PKK bases in the region.

Ahmed Danis, PKK, told Agence France-Press by phone: "The bombing lasted until midnight. The PKK forces have not suffered any casualties, because we have taken all the necessary precautions to reduce our losses."

The Turkish Armed Forces have a one year authorization for cross-border military action against the PKK, which expires in October.


text:
Marathon runner addresses Toronto, bringing attention to autism

July 24, 2008

Four months and 3,200 kilometres ago, Canadian runner Jonathan Howard began his run across the second-largest country in the world, to raise awareness for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).

A graduate of, Howard arrived in Toronto this week, to address the nation's largest city before continuing his westward run which will take him through.

Howard was met Monday at a charity by Senator. The fundraiser was part of Howard's strategy to raise 2.5 million dollars to assist families that support children with ASD. "Spectrum is a very puzzling word," he told the gathering "because there are many types of autism on that spectrum". The real goal of his RunTheDream.ca charity drive though, Howard explained, was simply to "get people involved in the issue" and generate attention for the little-understood disorder.

Eggleton, who welcomed to the city as mayor in 1980, drew comparisons to the  runner who became a Canadian icon. While praising Howard's efforts to raise money and awareness, the senator said he believed that "an awful lot more needs to be done" at the political level to combat the financial and emotional difficulties that face those dealing with autism.

Howard reassured supporters that he still intended to reach, before December 31. "The challenges are great," he confessed "but as long as the determination is greater, anything can be achieved".

Terry Robinson, a two-time Canadian Paralympic contender born with cerebral palsy, pledged to follow Howard's journey two weeks ago on its three-month leg from to.

Robinson addressed the city, speaking about how his own disabilities left him with an appreciation for how important it was to ensure that people struggling with autism had access to services that could support them.


text:
Talk:Marathon runner addresses Toronto, bringing attention to autism

If anybody wishes other photos from the event, in addition to the ones uploaded at Art Eggleton and Rob Oliphant, I can easily provide them (not freely licensed, personal use only) Sherurcij 09:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Notes needed
This article really needs some proper WN:OR notes. --SVTCobra 16:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "If you don't want to publish notes on Wikinews itself, whether for privacy or length reasons, feel free to e-mail the research to...an accredited reporter, who should note on the article's talk page that they have received the research notes.", Done! Sherurcij 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To whom did you send them? Just so I can remind them to post their confirmation here. --SVTCobra 17:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Myself, and I'm happy to confirm that as an accredited reporter, I received them, reviewed them, and was satisfied as to their authenticity. Sherurcij 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is what is intended. --SVTCobra 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome the world of journalism, a reporter is not required to publicly post his notes or share them with others. If a legal situation arises, portions of my notes will be made freely available - others won't be surrendered without a warrant. Wikinews has a policy that states that an accredited reporter, a person of trust, must confirm a story's authenticity to prevent hoaxes in OR. Luckily however, I am just such an accredited reporter on WN, and thus my saying "the story is legitimate" is as valid as Cirt coming in and saying "His story is legit". Sherurcij 20:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Get off your high horse and work with the community. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Original Reporting Notes
It is site policy that original reporting notes are provided. Until such time as they are this cannot be published. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let me just transcribe those for ya... Sherurcij 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Transcription of Notes

 * July 21 2008
 * Art Eggleton, John Jonathan Howard, Terry Richardson, Rob Oliphant (eMail address redacted)
 * JH: "Spectrum is a very puzzling word because there are many types of autism on that spectrum", wants to "get people involved in the issue", "The challenges are great, but as long as the determination is greater, anything can be achieved"
 * AE: "an awful lot more needs to be done" for financial and emotional difficulties refers to national strategy
 * RO: will be at Monday's meeting, needs me to phone him to arrange (redacted)'s speech at the gathering, Henry will have Lauren's address for it

Sherurcij 23:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * There's a huge amount of facts stated in this article that are not covered by those notes. Where did they come from? --SVTCobra 23:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * My telephone calls with contacts - sorry, didn't record them. Sherurcij 23:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

 * That's all that was needed: 'I spoke with the following people by phone: Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't list my source's names without their permission, sorry. But I'll be sure to put "I spoke to people" on the talk page of my articlesin the future, I can see how it's necessary and valuable. Sherurcij 16:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a classified matter. I doubt they'd care. But if you are worried about that, then ask them in the future. Then list your sources who say "yes". I dunno what you can do about sources who say no. Maybe say something like "I talked to 2 additional people, both of whom requested anonymity". That seems to be what real reporters do in that kind of situation. It's cool that you managed to speak to Art Eggleton:). Gopher65talk 18:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Friendly note", 'cool' is when you hear people like that refer to you by name as they recognise you - it still brings a smile to my face - though occasionally a cringe. "I don't want to be associated with you, shhh, I'm just a reporter!"
 * "Wikinews note", yup, sources are mine, where it's relevant to the article their names are obviously given - where they're behinds-the-scenes types, there's no reason or desire on my part to ask them permission, because I don't want/need to publish their names anyways. It's unfortunate, like "demanding our real names" to be accredited, WN would be happy/content with complete bullshit - I can just create a OR-justification template and make it say "Hey, I'm Sherurcij, I was there and I spoke to people and took photos" and they'd be like "Cool, that's what we need!". It's bullshit meant to stroke the collective ePenis that has no place in pseudo-professional reporting - yet there it is. sigh WN has great potential, but not so long as it's held back by people who think it's their personal blog. In fact, if possible, I would just line up anybody in the world who called themselves a "blogger" and have them stripped of all credentials. Ah well :) Sherurcij 02:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


text:
African HIV prevalence may also be physiological

July 24, 2008

A new study shows that a variation in a gene known as the Duffy antigen receptor for chemokines, or simply DARC, may introduce an unknown vulnerability that could lead to a 40% greater risk of contracting HIV, the precursor to AIDS. The genetic variation is found in two-thirds of sub-Saharan Africans.

This particular variation on the gene, in which a single genetic letter is flipped, is thought to be a defense mechanism against malaria. It stops the growth of the malaria-causing parasite Plasmodium vivax. Concurrently, it also causes chemokines (proteins secreted by cells) to avoid red blood cells, an opposite behavior of the typical Duffy gene.

An on-going study of African American Airmen has found that the group infected with HIV was more likely to lack red blood cells that host the Duffy gene. The study, published in Cell Host & Microbe, does not identify why the absence of the chemokine receptor in red blood cells increases susceptibility to HIV, but the occurrence of the virus in such people is beyond the levels of chance.

The study also found that those carrying the DARC variant lived longer with HIV/AIDS. While this comes as good news to those already infected, it also means that the window for the unwitting spread of HIV is now known to be wider, since infected individuals with the gene mutation can take an average of two years longer to show symptoms. In terms of numbers, the two years of unknowingly being a source for infection translates into as much as 11% of AIDS cases in Africa.


text:
Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080724

24 July

title: Wikinews:CommonsTicker/20080724