text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2011/September

Review 2.0
I'm starting this up to try and draw general discussion about the review policy, and its flaws, away from C628's current reconfirmation. I'm going to start with a recap of where we're at and what's being done - partly because the last burst of discussion was a while ago, so many folk will be unaware.

There's a proposal for a two-tier review system. Under this, the first-level review would take very little time and be a general once-over of the article. Such articles could be de-published etc, but would be sighted. The second-level would be what we have right now, and anything that went through that would be pushed to Google. It would not be mandatory. We have most of the needed infrastructure - a Google News Site Map (GNSM) has been built, and we have actually got two kinds of reviewer to hand out; we just only use one of them right now. As I understand it, there's very little left to work out, mostly minor things - what date goes on a page if the two reviews were different days etc. As a side-note, the GNSM would also make it possible to pull any article from GNews if problems turned up, as they sometimes do.

The second proposal is just above - Bawolff's hidable inline citations, wherever his code for that has got to. I wouldn't want to make that mandatory, either; it makes articles much harder to write. However, I would like to strongly encourage those who're comfortable with it to use it as it would make reviewing waaay easier.

I'm going to try and poke the folk involved in the technical side of these (Amgine, Brianmc, Bawolff) for 'better' details than I can provide. The key issue, for me, is that the current system only works at all (nevermind if it works well or not) if we've got enough active folk... But while it isn't working, we won't get the required growth.

Now, hopefuly we can talk about review here and save C628's reconfirm - because, making that about the general issue is greatly unfair to C628 and led to me opposing when I might otherwise have supported. I held back pending wether I should ask for a little clarification, and now I regret that because it has become a support/oppose of policy and not a support/oppose of C628. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Fer as I know, the two-tier proposal ultimately failed because it has a fatal flaw; I don't consider it extant. I worked this out after contributing much effort myself to trying to iron out the bugs — find ways to challenge it, and figure out how to overcome those challenges.  I eventually found a challenge that neither I nor anyone else came up with a way to overcome.  The problem is that it simply isn't possible for the two tracks to coexist.  If the unreviewed track is allowed to exist, the reviewed track (the thing that makes us a news site rather than a blog) will quickly cease to exist in practice, being swamped and smothered by the blog.  Volunteer wikis are fueled by idealism; when a project backs away from its ideals, it's through.
 * I half agree about it being unfair that C628's reconfirm turned into a referendum on the foundations of Wikinews — though C628 should have realized that the "let's be a blog" faction would converge on that confirm like (well, okay, that's a pretty strong simile, so I'll leave it to your imagination). It was obvious to me from the moment C628 opened the reconfirm that such would probably happen; I tried to give it an opportunity to not happen, by handing xem an opportunity to say "I won't do it again" — and xe couldn't bring xyrself to say that, which is a positive reflection on xyr honesty (which I've always respected) but not on the actual issue of the reconfirm.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That presupposes there's an unreviewed track. I say that assumption can be taken as null; a basic check at the first level should weed out blog-like articles. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to entertain the notion of having two tiers. Wikipedia has a similar quality control system in place (the actually have three tiers). But what standards would tier one articles be held to? Ragettho (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst I'm sure everyone has a vague idea, that's something that needs worked out in exact terms... But, I'd suggest we check it a) is sourced properly (but without doing the full verify) b) has all the code/format (most articles already do and it's easy and quick to add) and c) doesn't have any major NPOV problems (total rants would be stopped, but perhaps not carefuly looking for tiny biases). That should be a fairly quick check. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would propose something along the lines of the following (which incorporates some things that have been floating around in my mind for a while but weren't mentioned in the previous discussion:
 * An article can receive a cursory review. This makes it appear on the main page and portals, but nowhere else, clearly set apart from published articles. The cursory review would ensure neutrality, newsworthiness, etc., and include a brief check that the article roughly corresponds with the style guide and sources. It is accompanied by a big template at the top of the page, warning about the possibility of errors.
 * After this, it can have the sources and style-guide compliance checked in detail. Published is added, the big banner disappears from the top, and it joins the other articles in the main DPL.
 * If stage two has not occurred by the time the article is due to turn stale, it can be deleted, as any unreviewed article would be currently. Alternatively, it can be reviewed without a date bump. This all makes it a highly unsatisfactory outcome, so it would hopefully never happen. It's basically the same as going completely unreviewed right now, with the added possibility of a particularly good article at least remaining on the site in some form.
 * So the new workflows (using FlaggedRevs terminology) would be:
 * Develop → Sighted → Reviewed → Archived
 * Develop → Sighted → Stale → Deleted [because we definitely don't want this, it will hopefully happen very rarely and act as an incentive to do a full review]
 * In addition to the ones we already have:
 * Develop → Deleted
 * Develop → Reviewed → Archived [although this actually only uses the lower "sighted" level of FlaggedRevs]
 * Now, tell me how wrong I am! DEN  DODGE  George Watson  21:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm not convinced we want to delete the ones that never make it the whole way through. I'd like both to show up on the main page, but differentiated somehow. Possibly anything from totally separate lists to a little 'verified' logo next to the link. Perhaps a good incentive - as well as good practice generally - to get things reviewed in full is for only tier-two articles to be used as lead stories... Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I figured the problem π0 raised was partly - if not completely - due to the fact that we were treating both stages as subsets of publication. And so I chose to solve it by instead making the cursory check act more like a subset of developing. If an article is good, it can be reviewed fully without a datebump within, say, 24 hours of going stale, and thus remain on the site without getting deleted. The fact that the review will be less of a job than it currently is will hopefully mean this happens more often than it currently would for articles that go stale while tagged with Review - especially so as we don't currently have prevision for it in policy. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  21:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

[I've had many, many consecutive edit conflicts trying to post this; I keep glancing at what's new, and just slightly adjusting therefor. If we're not careful, the project will grind to a halt while we talk about this stuff.]

Cursory review doesn't work. It was (I'm pretty sure) my suggestion, and the epic fail I'm describing applies regardless of whether there's cursory review in place or not. (Ragettho, note re Wikipedia's arrangement: Wikinews is not Wikipedia. :-) Note also that, although I place a couple of different kinds of importance on the stylistic stuff that makes some people claim we're rule-bound, the really important parts of review are the the massively time-consuming things included in "source checking", and those things are both what makes us not a blog, and what would have to be omitted from the "lower tier".

There is an idea I find very interesting, that Bawolff has raised twice since I've been here (let's say that means xe raises it every year or year and a half). Late review. This is fundamentally different from the primary two-tier proposal (as I understand it), in that an article can never make it into the archives unless it eventually passes every criterion except freshness. The state of this idea as I recall it: --Pi zero (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The article would have to have been started while still fresh.
 * Only articles that pass review while still fresh would be pushed off site (GNews etc.), although some provision might be made for late-reviewed articles to appear on the main page.
 * The late-reviewed article would have some sort of up-front distinctive tag on it, forever marking it as late-reviewed, and its dateline would not be the date of late review, but something earlier... maybe T plus 2 days?
 * Because all articles have to eventually meet peer-review standards, people always strive for those standards, completely (I think) preventing the fatal flaw I was describing with the primary two-tier proposal.
 * Although it might be very good training for authors to keep trying to get an article right for as long as it takes to do so, there really is a challenge here because one cannot be entirely neutral in presenting a snapshot-in-time of something that happened a considerable time ago, after you already know about other stuff than happened in the meantime. Brian McNeil rejected the idea decisively on this basis, each time it was brought up.  I think we can find a way to cope with this, but this is definitely the thing we would have to find a way to cope with.  (I've some ideas.)
 * Late review is a (small) part of my proposal above, which I crafted in an attempt to deal, to an extent, with your concerns. To what extent do you feel it does so, if at all? DEN  DODGE  George Watson  22:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Source-checking for tier one doesn't have to be as rigorous as our current standards. The only thing we would have to do is ensure that the main focus of the article matches the main focus of the source articles.
 * The main thing that sets us apart from a blog, IMO, is our NPOV policy. As long as we enforce the NPOV policy, I think a two-tier system is doable. Ragettho (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict, again]

 * (Ragettho: I don't think you understand the nature of the problem I'm describing.)

 * Dendodge: Here are the two major differences I think I'm seeing between the two proposals:
 * In your proposal, an article could appear on the main page without having passed a full review. My first impression is, that would not avoid the problem I'm concerned about.  "My" proposal allows people to keep trying even after the freshness horizon is past, but also motivates them to keep trying, because it doesn't give them recognition for achievement until and unless they do meet the criteria.  The article could hang around for weeks (unless we decide there's some limit after all) without being deleted or archived, if it's still being worked on with a still-realistic chance of eventual success.  We would have to think carefully about how to prevent people from getting really pissed off when there's a fundamental problem that will always prevent their article from being published, even though they expend many days on it past the freshness horizon; presumably we'd want some way to cut things short if success is really impossible.  (Hm.)
 * In my proposal, when an article becomes stale, that means it can't be, er, fresh-reviewed and therefore pushed out to other sites (I'm assuming it doesn't get updated to become fresh again). It might still be brought up to speed for late-review, and thereafter find a happy home in our archives.  With an up-front tag that it was late-reviewed, of course, but we just want that to be unmistakeable, not an eyesore like the correction notice or something.  It's something to be proud of.  (We would want two separate review queues, btw, one for fresh-review and one for late-review, because obviously reviewers should put their efforts first into articles that are still capable of being fresh-reviewed.)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but they would probably appear on the main page in a separate section from our primary output - not necessarily "below the fold", but not as prominent. I think the majority of contributors would be willing to work to get their articles to a completely publishable state so they appear in the proper list, can become leads, etc. And - perhaps most importantly - won't be deleted in, say, seven days unless it receives a full review. That, alone, would be motivation enough. Some people would complain that we are deleting published articles or something, but that is exactly the mindset that I am trying to get people out of - these are, effectively, developing articles that look like they're probably OK. It allows for timeliness, and doesn't compromise too much on verifiability.
 * Your proposal, I think, will actually reduce timeliness - right now, when an article has been in the queue for two days, someone will take the time to review it. If we remove the time restrictions, people will continue to not bother well past the time the story becomes stale. Procrastination is, frankly, human nature. The issue we're trying to solve is not quality, nor volume, but timeliness - getting the news out there while it is still news. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  23:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with some of that, agree with some of it, and the line between the two is positively fractal. This is getting to be a really interesting discussion — and I think I have to force myself to wait a meaningful while before responding.  Maybe tomorrow morning.  Otherwise I'll end up staying up all night and getting nothing else done (seriously, that's happened to me before on Wikinews).  --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: I'm having serious computer problems, which may prevent me from doing much on-wiki for some unknown time (hour or two, day or two, week or two...). --Pi zero (alt acct)  (alt talk) 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to get this discussion moving again, because I think we all agree that the current review system we have in place is unsustainable. If I understand the proposals correctly, we are now considering a two-tiered review system that still forces the lower tier to eventually comply with the standards of the higher tier, albeit at a slower pace. Hopefully this proposal will encourage more users to collaboratively edit the articles, especially if you have a banner saying "Help us fix this or the article will be unpublished!" Ragettho (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm not altogether comfortable with "the current review system we have in place is unsustainable". There's always room for improvement —I'm not advocating stasis— but I think it's also very easy to exaggerate the problems, both in severity, depth, and urgency, and I'm not convinced near-term major change is necessary or even desirable.  (I've been hoping late review could be arranged as a rather mild change, and indeed my biggest qualms about it are whether it can be made sufficiently mild.)  The single thing I'd most like to do to improve things in the near term is to get my computer problems fixed so I can participate in review again, and the next after that is to figure out how to add incremental data entry fields to the article wizard (as the article wizard aims to improve quality of submitted articles and therefore efficiency of available review time).

 * I was going to next write a (hopefully very succinct) description of advantageous and disadvantageous motivations entailed by various combinations of features in an article workflow, including the two or three most notably proposed combinations here, and of course the one we currently use. This I think could be quite valuable in understanding the landscape of possibilities.  It's a big job to draft such a description, even bigger to make it lean enough to avoid accusations of Wikipedian verbosity — and if I weren't spending all my time trying to solve my computer problems, I'd be spending most of my Wikinews time just at the moment trying to help out with the review queue.  --Pi zero (alt acct)  (alt talk) 15:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixing your computer, as you point out, is a very short-term solution, as is creating a more efficient article wizard. Newer users will continue to submit substandard articles that lack cohesion and neutrality (the hardest-to-fix problems I've seen so far), whether they type it in manually or through incremental data fields. Furthermore, our high dependence on the availability of reviewers is what makes the current system "unsustainable" — many UOW students have so far submitted fairly well-written material here on Wikinews, but the lack of reviewers is causing much of their work to go to waste.
 * What we need is a system that allows us to publish articles that are "kinda ready" into the lower tier, akin to what happened with Magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia felt up and down U.S. east coast, Pentagon evacuated. That article was very short when it was published, but with frequent collaboration and reviews, it eventually grew to a lengthy article that has a lot of sources and photos. Obviously all of the proposals will have to be thought through more carefully, but nonetheless I do think that any two-tier system would be an improvement to the workflow we currently have. Ragettho (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A two-tier system in which the lower tier represents less rigorous review would not only not be an improvement, it would be the end of the project.
 * A two-tier system whose "lower" tier doesn't represent less rigorous review, bears very careful thought. So that's worth pursuing at a propitious moment.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 05:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain your reasoning, or at least point me to a previous post where you have articulated your arguments? Saying "I don't think you understand the nature of the problem I'm describing" without further explanation does not help. This discussion will move forward only if we all are willing to critique the merits of each person's ideas, in addition to presenting our own suggestions.
 * I won't be available to contribute starting later today until Sunday, but I just wanted to post this now because I really think this discussion ought to be moving forward. (Though the fact that only two of us are currently participating is actually quite disappointing.) I still believe that the review system currently in place is holding Wikinews back from potential growth, and it needs to be fixed as soon as possible to accommodate the contributions of the UOW students. Ragettho (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A meta-observation: my remarks here tend to come out abrupt (for perspective, that last one took me fully two hours to write) because it would be appallingly easy for me to spend days on end doing nothing but crafting explanations on this subject, and while preventing me from doing actual news work on the site, they'd be pretty much a total loss — discussing at length why something is a non-starter is hard to characterize as productive. So I'm working really, really hard to avoid indulging in that, at least until I can do it in the context of a comprehensive overview of all this stuff (although, as I see more and more fundamental problems with the late review concept, that too is becoming less and less attractive as a near-term time expenditure).

 * I'll make only "one", painfully limited remark (because I'm surrounded by slippery slopes, here). Our output product is not what authors produce; that is a trap of thinking I too was lured half into, and took a long time to find my way out of.  The trap is essentially a denial that review has value — a position that looks absurd when stated baldly, but the output-product view allows the denial to come in by stealth, so one doesn't realize having denied it.  Our output is rigorously reviewed articles.  A blog values only authorship; we value both authorship and review, and some of the necessary things that make us worthwhile as a project are profound benefits of fully integrating review into the equation.  Our high standards are why the UoW students are here, and no way no how should we consider changing our standards "to accommodate them".  What we have at the moment is not a fundamental failure of how our project works, but a day-to-day challenge of how to find the most promising articles within a long review queue (actually more of a review pool atm).  (Drat, I have to stop at this point, because I'm about to go shooting down one of those slippery slopes.)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "What we have at the moment is not a fundamental failure of how our project works, but a day-to-day challenge of how to find the most promising articles within a long review queue" <-- so by that logic, you don't support changing the review system because it works when there's only a few articles written. But when there's many written, as is the case now, the system collapses. And since only increasing the article output is going to make Wikinews more relevent, you advocate for a self-defeating strategy. Unless people like publishing only an article or two a day, that is indeed a fundamental failure of how our project works. C628 (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ragettho — Given changed circumstances, I'll try to find time to piece together some sort of succinct description of those motivational factors I was referring to earlier. Obviously I can't promise anything, but hopefully I'll be able to produce something tolerably presentable sometime in the next few days.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: We've lost power, and are now running on a backup generator. It has limited fuel, and we'll probably only run it for maybe an hour twice a day (in case this turns into a week-long outage), so I'll only be around occasionally for however long this goes on (er, stays off).  --Pi zero (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Section break
(Reigniting this thread!) I agree with C628. Another fundamental flaw in our current review system is that it deters the writers from producing the ideal article. Articles that are long and use too many sources take a long time to review, so they are often failed for staleness. Writers therefore tend to write shorter articles that use the minimum two sources, reducing the likelihood that the articles "fairly represent all sides in a news story" (WN:NPOV).

Quite frankly, I fail to see why the Wikipedia system wouldn't work here on Wikinews. Having a lower tier would surely reduce the quality of most of our articles in the short run, but over the long run the rising output of articles would ideally increase the amount of attention given to the project, and we would eventually have a decent crop of "good articles" that we can still be proud of. Ragettho (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The above post has more thought-provoking and meaningful content than the rest of the thread put together! It deserves to have its own section.
 * My presence always stirs controversy, yet this was such a fascinating discussion that I could hardly resist commenting. But I'll keep it short. The argument that "the status quo is working well" becomes harder to sell after one studies the statistics. (Note, in particular, "New wikireporters", "New articles per day", and "Very active wikireporters".) Tempodivalse [talk]  19:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very wrong to try and draw an analogue with Wikipedia's system; an encyclopedia entry and a news article are completely different animals. There isn't the time pressure at all on Wikipedia, and incremental improvement is possible there. You need to consider why we have review, and what we're wanting to achieve with a two-tier system. I would disregard any statistics for the time being, getting hung up on how effectively we rewrite MSM material is a red-herring. What pleased me most in the last week was seeing two OR stories on leads at the same time. Our long-term goal should be to have the majority of work as OR, and synthesis stuff an effective apprenticeship.
 * So, the core of a review is really: newsworthiness, lack of copyright infringement, verifiability, style and NPOV. That we set higher standards than most of the mainstream is something to be proud of; that it limits output is regrettable, but understandable.
 * If we accept a lower standard, what - in 3-4 sentences - is the essence of it? No matter how much we all want to increase output, we need to have a clear consensus on that, then we can move forward.
 * Anyway, until someone can say there is a clear, concise, definition of a minimum review standard, I'm stepping back out of this discussion; it's become overly verbose and my time would be better spent trying to work with the UoW students. In the long-term I'd like some of them to graduate to reviewer and in later course years get credit for acting as copyeditors and fact-checkers. If we help their use of Wikinews be a success, it will over the longer term make the project viable in an educational context. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why disregard statistics? They are a reliable long-term indicator of a project's (and, by extension, a project's policy's) viability. We have stayed at unprecedentedly low activity levels for over six months. Surely you don't mean to say this isn't a cause for any concern. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tempo, statistics are mostly a way of misunderstanding situations with confidence. You remember the attributed-to-Twain comment 'there are three kinds of lies — lies, damn lies, and statistics'?  Well, even when one isn't deliberately twisting them, they practically never mean what most observers think they mean.  So they're much more insidious that mere lies, or even damn lies.  They actively reach out to mislead you.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fourth commenter with a fourth view to give(!). Guess this is why Brian's stepping back from the verbosity - I did for a while, too. The stats seem fine for an understanding of where we are; but I feel we should put them aside for where we go next. Not to say we shouldn't (cautiously) use them to monitor the progress... Although some things, like quality, aren't measureable by stats; we could have lots of readers if we were simlar to The News of the World. So useful, but not the be all and end all. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think I agree about even measuring where we are by the stats. Figuring out what is and isn't reflected in them is usually far more work than it's worth (and that's assuming one can successfully puzzle it out; most people don't have the knack).  I recall Tempo trying to use stats about corrected articles, a while back, to judge accuracy (I hope it was accuracy, not quality), which is wrong in so many ways one could write an essay on that alone; my point isn't to rehash that particular issue, but to illustrate that Tempo has an unfortunate long-term addiction to approaching stats as an oracle from which xe draws the conclusions xe already wanted to draw (the nature of oracles immemorial).  --Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Somewhat harsh on Tempo, I feel (although perhaps fair on stats). Hmm. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I still say disregard statistics for now. I don't want to delve into the six months of low output; but, people campaigning here, there, and everywhere, with a picture of me as some sort of ogre is more than unhelpful. That may be, as BRS says, being "harsh on Tempo", but there are oh-so many examples of where disregarding my advice and/or opinions has gone very, very badly.

We seem, regardless of what we do here on Wikinews, stuck with my main annoyance – Wikipedians will never stop using their encyclopedia as a news site. There are those in The Other Place™ who will concoct any excuse they can to decline appropriate links from "not a news site" templates to Wikinews. Then, our reliability is called into question, and use of Wikinews as a source is flat-out refused. I'm, frankly, past caring when it comes to that; in terms of competence, I feel the average Wikinewsie is worth any dozen, randomly selected, Wikipedians in terms of writing ability.

Wikinews has outlasted at least a dozen other citizn journalism projects. Our biggest challenge is keeping to NPOV, and we by-and-large manage - content-wise - far more integrity and respectability than just about any mainstream publication on the planet.

Can we find a way to make reviewing easier? I doubt it. It would, first, require that contributors be able to write extremely well in the first place. As any reviewer will attest, most can't.

That I can't see a solution to the project's issues does not mean there isn't one; but, if someone cannot articulate a workable way forward in a handful of sentences—which everyone sees as viable—then continuing this discussion is just an exercise in self-flagellation. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Brian — You mentioned a while back writing an essay for newcomers about how easy it can be to do original reporting. I said I wanted to see that.  I do want to see that.  It's one instance of the sort of genuinely valuable project improvement that we need, that we aren't doing while we're flubbing around here with alternative workflows that all have severe flaws.

 * Ragettho — Not a day goes by that I don't spend some more time thinking through how to write a neat synopsis of the big picture of this stuff as I see it. Including all the interesting question marks.  (There's some degree of depth to the image, as that big picture has really been my primary focus here for the... three years?... since I arrived.)  So from my perspective the idea of "reigniting"/"keeping alive" has never applied.   I do think this thread is a huge pile of mostly-very-low-density text, and frankly I don't consider it worth repeatedly applying life support to.  When I finally formulate a comment of the sort I'm striving for, I mean to put it in a fresh thread, even if this one hasn't been autoarchived by then.  (That's supposing what I come up with is best expressed as a wc thread rather than, say, an essay.)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Since I was asked to address this topic whilst a very long distance from internet, I didn't. But I will briefly do so now:
 * there is a single advocate of status quo, who has consistently and resiliently opposed any attempt to streamline/modify the review process. This user is valuable to the community, therefore all attempts to modify the review process have been abandoned in favour of placating this user.
 * A two-tier review process is eminently implementable with current technology. The primary argument in favour is un-publishability; that is, anyone can readily and easily unpublish an article which does not meet minimum community standards. What those standards may be is currently undefined, but they do not need to be predefined before implementation of a two-tier system. Organic development of standards is traditional on en.Wikinews, but meh.

Beyond this is mostly mental masturbation. Feel free to continue to do so; I quit being involved with it after ensuring the primary issue was resolved technically. -  Amgine | t 03:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Not sure how to count the falsehoods in that first bullet — three or four. --Pi zero (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Results, not words. -  Amgine | t 04:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Style guide
I am a relatively new editor here at Wikinews, but I noticed the style guide conflicts with much of the content featured on the main page. The guide states that all paragraphs after the lead should contain only one or two sentences (three if they are short). Apple executive Steve Jobs resigns, Japan nuclear disaster: areas to remain off-limits for decades, and UK electoral commission asked to investigate News International payoffs all contain relatively long paragraphs and I believe it improves the articles. I also think the information on the purpose of the first paragraph is a little too similar to encyclopedic writing. I think that in a news article, the first paragraph should grab the readers' attention and lay out what the article is going to be about. This is slightly different than a summary of the article like what is used on Wikipedia. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I found another section of the style guide which either needs enforced compliance or a change. The style guide mandates in-text attribution; however, articles do not give the attribution.  For example, the third paragraph of Japan nuclear disaster: areas to remain off-limits for decades offers no attribution.  In addition, an article I wrote Apple executive Steve Jobs resigns was passed with no attribution in the second or third paragraph.  Would it be fair to modify the style guide to say that "in text attribution is required for any quotations included in a story"?  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  04:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Some general points. (Apologies this will be longer than Wikinewsie culture usually approves; "Wikipedian" is the pejorative term here for long posts.)
 * The way things work is way more complex (I'm tempted to use the idiom "infinitely more complex") than what is written down, or probably can be written down. Even WN:IAR has exceptions (independent review is the most prominent exception to IAR, and is explicitly named there).  What's most important in the SG is part of the complexity..
 * BTW, WN:SG was revised with community consensus quite recently, to somewhat better reflect what has actually been done for a very long time — which highlights something else to keep in mind about all the written "rules": they sometimes lag behind, even far behind, best practice. Wikinewsies spend almost all their project efforts on the news itself, with little time left over to fiddle with infrastructure pages (we're reluctant to change them quickly anyway, a necessary precaution on a small project where consensus must have a time component).  We even found and fixed early last year (iirc) a passage in the archive policy from about 2005 that said we have no independent review, that had been lurking there since about 2005 and nobody had noticed for the several years we've had flaggedrevs.
 * There are lots of things we try to do. Detailed guidelines rules [note, this is really hard to say well] describe ideals to strive for; the "most important" ones are simply the ones where falling short would be most dire — copyright, verification, and neutrality (speaking of dire, "don't commit libel" falls under neutrality).  I created WN:Tips on reviewing articles partly to help keep track of such stuff (and it's a good place to go to try to find stuff that's otherwise scattered all hither and yon across the the site, if it's even written elsewhere; see the Checklist, and the wc thread that led to that page's creation).
 * Some more specific points.
 * The lede is a summary of the news event. Its purpose, as I've written endlessly in review comments, is to answer as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about the news event.  I agree we should try to do better on this; the vast majority of nonconformant ledes are due to authors that don't know.
 * Attribution we should strive to do better on, too. I've been thinking for a while the stuff about attribution should be clarified that it doesn't mean you should say which source you got each thing in a synthesis article from.
 * Doesn't it already say that quotes must be attributed? I have a strong feeling it does, somewhere.  (Problem of finding things, again, for which the Tips checklist tries to be helpful.)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Focusing on attributions for the time being, the quotes section of the style guide actually doesn't say anything about attribution. I think it is fairly obvious that attribution is needed, but  it should probably be explicitly stated there.  :::When I first read Style guide, I was given the impression that you must attribute sources by stating "According to New York Times, the elves have overthrown Santa".  That doesn't seem to be written in a newslike style at all.  How are things supposed to be attributed?  In the first article I worked on, Magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia felt up and down U.S. east coast, Pentagon evacuated, attribution was given in the form of hidden comments.  Is this something that should continue?  Either way, I think the section in the style guide should be rewritten.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  14:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first impression is exactly what bothers me about that passage. It comes across as if a synthesis article should have the form "X1, according to Y1.  X2, according to Y2."  I've had to write explanations repeatedly in reviewer comments that that's not what's wanted.  Sometimes it particularly matters which news source was involved, but mostly it's where they got it from that's called for in attribution.

 * We're very allergic to instruction bloat here, and part of that is often that things are only said in one place.

 * I'll take a really close re-look at these parts of the SG, hopefully later today. --Pi zero (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

 * To knock down the attribution point:
 * It would be silly to say "According to the New York Times, a USGov statement says "nya! nya!"". The point is, where a NYT reporter was on-the-ground, and the only one who got the quote, it should be attributed.
 * I'm looking at the above, and despairing; could any more words be used to bring up, and discuss, so few issues? --Brian McNeil / talk 20:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not actually silly; it's professional. Where a quote is an exclusive (for example, in an exclusive interview with the NYT,) it is proper to ascribe the source ("...XX told NYT", "as reported by the NYT...") Where a quote is public (for example in a new conference or press release), it is only ascribed to the person/organization ("Secretary XX said...", "... according to the IRS.") Every factual statement must be sourced, but every statement need not be ascribed. Generally, only quotes need to be ascribed.
 * The details of the style guide are always difficult to grasp to persons new to Wikinews. The purpose of the style guide is to standardize how we do things, so our regular readers can quickly grasp the important particulars of our reporting. Not all stories will always follow the style guide completely and exactly, but when copyediting we should all try to bring all stories into compliance - that is part of what copyediting is about. -  Amgine | t 03:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:IDavied

-- 19:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:IDavied


text:
User talk:Luis Miguel Luna

-- 19:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Luis Miguel Luna


text:
User talk:Diegho122

-- 19:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Diegho122


text:
User talk:Mediajunkee210

-- 20:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mediajunkee210


text:
User talk:JLAZZERI

-- 20:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JLAZZERI


text:
User talk:Hashem37927

-- 20:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hashem37927


text:
User talk:Yonatan Kory

-- 20:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yonatan Kory


text:
User talk:Baezbarboza

-- 21:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Baezbarboza


text:
User talk:Vamhyd

-- 21:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vamhyd


text:
User talk:Rhejie

-- 21:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rhejie


text:
User talk:Robertwalker62

-- 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robertwalker62


text:
User talk:Commonews

-- 21:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Commonews


text:
User talk:FlavioGalvao

-- 21:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:FlavioGalvao


text:
User talk:Kydenj

-- 21:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kydenj


text:
User talk:N.hurtadosandoval

-- 21:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:N.hurtadosandoval


text:
User talk:Andrea Cote

-- 22:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andrea Cote


text:
User talk:けてけて

-- 22:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:けてけて


text:
User talk:Jcrivero

-- 22:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jcrivero


text:
User talk:DnaX

-- 23:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DnaX


text:
User talk:The1Baxter

-- 23:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:The1Baxter


text:
User talk:Jssb13

-- 23:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jssb13


text:
User talk:98malimal

-- 23:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:98malimal


text:
User talk:Rodrigogneves

-- 00:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rodrigogneves


text:
User talk:Rohitsingh.wiki

-- 00:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rohitsingh.wiki


text:
User talk:Joelton Ong

-- 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joelton Ong


text:
User talk:Vaka venkataramanaiah

-- 00:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vaka venkataramanaiah


text:
User talk:Claire de Bleum

-- 01:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Claire de Bleum


text:
User talk:MarioFSH

-- 01:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MarioFSH


text: Comments:Australian government paves way for nuclear waste dump in Northern Territory


text:
Thread:Comments:Australian government paves way for nuclear waste dump in Northern Territory/Comments from feedback form - "shit"

shit —180.95.18.11 (talk) 01:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Nacychen

-- 01:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nacychen


text:
User talk:Lag5555

-- 01:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lag5555


text:
User talk:Flippynila

-- 01:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Flippynila


text:
User talk:Komjdp

-- 02:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Komjdp


text:
User talk:Miguelpizzanelli

-- 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Miguelpizzanelli


text:
User talk:Josecabiativa

-- 02:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Josecabiativa


text:
User talk:Lindsayfan~enwikinews

-- 02:28, 19 September 2011 (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 Lindsayfan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Lindsayfan~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lindsayfan~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Alex Cohn

-- 02:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alex Cohn


text:
User talk:Senorthgo

-- 02:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Senorthgo


text:
Thread:Comments:Texas wildfires push public resources to the limit/Lack of public resources in Texas? No kidding!

I lived in Texas a significant portion of my life. Here we have officials complaining about the lack of volunteers or personnel to fight fires, yet not a single official thinks about the lack of training for so many Texas young people, and the high number of unemployed, undertrained and basically disenfranchised people there are in the state of Texas. Are there any programs in place to help those people become firefighters? Accountants? or other necessary and vital occupations in Texas?


text:
User talk:Ansstar182

-- 03:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ansstar182


text:
User talk:Dancbaruch

-- 03:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dancbaruch


text:
User talk:Sureshzons

-- 03:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sureshzons


text:
User talk:Sunil k mall

-- 03:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sunil k mall


text:
User talk:Vinaykumay

-- 03:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vinaykumay


text:
User talk:Mintudawani

-- 03:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mintudawani


text:
User talk:Jtiller11

-- 03:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jtiller11


text:
User talk:Injunez

-- 04:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Injunez


text:
User talk:Hankinsmarx

-- 04:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hankinsmarx


text:
User talk:203.62.134.131

Our submission guidelines
I'd like to let you know that here at the English Wikinews, we only accept English language news. You've recently made contributions that don't qualify as news. We appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept the edits you've made, so they have been reverted or deleted.

In the future, if you'd like to submit news, we are more than happy to have your help! Just make sure to check out this article, which talks about what Wikinews is not. As a brief primer, please note that neither editorial content nor opinion pieces qualify as news.

Thank you for your contributions! — Mike moral  ♪♫  04:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:203.62.134.131


text:
User talk:Narenindra

-- 04:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Narenindra


text:
User talk:Elprox104

-- 04:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elprox104


text:
User talk:Nebumroy

-- 05:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nebumroy


text:
User talk:安眠3

-- 05:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:安眠3


text:
User talk:Sohel~enwikinews

-- 05:26, 19 September 2011 (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 Sohel. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sohel~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 23:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Sohel~enwikinews


text:
User talk:ZangRap

-- 05:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ZangRap


text:
User talk:XrypticPyro

-- 05:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:XrypticPyro


text:
User talk:Anikom15

-- 05:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anikom15


text:
User talk:RafaelhnnriqueS

-- 05:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:RafaelhnnriqueS


text:
User talk:Gebspsg

-- 05:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gebspsg


text:
User talk:Akash 892

-- 06:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Akash 892


text:
User talk:Tuechler

-- 06:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tuechler


text:
User talk:Hawker07

-- 06:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hawker07


text:
User talk:Q011845

-- 06:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Q011845


text:
User talk:Tapu01911

-- 06:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tapu01911


text:
User talk:Kiranbairu

-- 06:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kiranbairu


text:
User talk:Joe Inigo

-- 06:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joe Inigo


text:
User talk:Xxxxn1l0xxxx

-- 07:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xxxxn1l0xxxx


text:
User talk:Woederze

-- 07:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Woederze


text:
User talk:Dr.Mustafa Kalhoro

-- 07:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dr.Mustafa Kalhoro


text:
User talk:Jc248

-- 07:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jc248


text:
User talk:Glfminh

-- 07:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Glfminh


text:
User talk:Ari.MSC

-- 08:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ari.MSC


text:
User talk:Aurels

-- 08:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aurels


text:
User talk:Emj

-- 08:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Emj


text:
User talk:Soldierno77

-- 08:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Soldierno77


text:
User talk:Phjang1983

-- 09:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phjang1983


text:
User talk:J4rv1s

-- 09:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:J4rv1s


text:
User talk:Waerfelu

-- 09:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Waerfelu


text:
Thread:Comments:Zimbabwe minister warns media/Former President

Is Mugabee not still President of Zimbabwe? Or is this a sarcastic jab at the fact that he didn't technically win the last election?


text:
Thread:Comments:Southampton City Council votes against water fluoridation/If petitions don't work...

...then petition with your wallets. Their customers have spoken and they don't care because they know they don't have to. If enough people refuse to pay their water bills until fluoridation stops then I'm sure they'll start listening.


text:
User talk:Malineuse

-- 09:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Malineuse


text:
User talk:Archikraken

-- 09:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Archikraken


text:
Thread:Comments:Australia's Channel Seven breaches children TV standards regulations by broadcasting McDonald's advertisement/Who's In Charge?/reply

Funny thing, no matter how much advice experts give us, a saddening number of parents continue to "raise" their parents the way it's always been done - absentminded and reactionary, sneaking off to drink or work while the television babysits their children at every opportunity. Why blame the people nobody pays attention to in the first place?


text:
User talk:T 2011 0911

-- 09:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:T 2011 0911


text:
User talk:Leuviah

-- 10:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leuviah


text:
User talk:ChrisWong7

-- 10:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ChrisWong7


text:
User talk:Francisco Martins Silva

-- 10:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Francisco Martins Silva


text:
User talk:Ishu.aghav

-- 10:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ishu.aghav


text:
User talk:Sabrin91

-- 10:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sabrin91


text:
User talk:Sockayefla

-- 11:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sockayefla


text:
User talk:Saalam123

-- 11:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Saalam123


text:
User talk:Rksarangi

-- 11:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rksarangi


text:
User talk:Perfilderedes

-- 11:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Perfilderedes


text:
User talk:Blue-comet

-- 11:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Blue-comet


text:
User talk:Hmkanth76

-- 11:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hmkanth76


text:
User talk:Vtrravikumar

-- 11:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vtrravikumar


text:
User talk:Garciadelrio

-- 11:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Garciadelrio


text:
User talk:Loischantada

-- 11:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Loischantada


text:
User talk:Sharpkiwi

-- 12:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sharpkiwi


text:
User talk:Azarien

-- 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Azarien


text:
User talk:Fayez elmassry

-- 12:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fayez elmassry


text:
User talk:Andressalik1

-- 12:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andressalik1


text:
User talk:Suky cz

-- 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Suky cz


text:
User talk:Al-Zoro

-- 12:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Al-Zoro


text:
User talk:Shubhampatane

-- 12:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shubhampatane


text:
User talk:Anushanp

-- 13:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anushanp


text:
User talk:Nana00

-- 13:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nana00


text:
User talk:Swopem1

-- 13:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Swopem1


text:
User talk:BobLee0677

-- 13:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:BobLee0677


text:
User talk:Mr. bisi onasanya

-- 13:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mr. bisi onasanya


text:
User talk:Mdeokute

-- 13:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mdeokute


text:
User talk:Hermawan Herdiansyah

-- 13:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hermawan Herdiansyah


text:
User talk:Keeperoftheforest

-- 13:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Keeperoftheforest


text:
User talk:Spade51466

-- 14:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Spade51466


text:
User talk:JasonClifton1978

-- 14:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JasonClifton1978


text:
User talk:Karhalejr

-- 14:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Karhalejr


text:
User talk:Ma50511

-- 14:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ma50511


text:
User talk:Yishen

-- 14:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yishen


text:
User talk:Bookworm1287

-- 14:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bookworm1287


text:
User talk:Hopur2

-- 14:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hopur2


text:
User talk:Varunbs1

-- 14:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Varunbs1


text:
User talk:Dabu~enwikinews

-- 14:21, 19 September 2011 (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 Dabu. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dabu~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Dabu~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Tctronix

-- 14:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tctronix


text:
User talk:TolgaCtl

-- 14:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:TolgaCtl


text:
User talk:Hadar2029

-- 14:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hadar2029


text:
User talk:JimGodfather

-- 14:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JimGodfather


text:
User talk:Philmon49

-- 14:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Philmon49


text:
User talk:Hdsupplycanada

-- 14:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hdsupplycanada


text:
User talk:Koonans

-- 15:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Koonans


text:
User talk:Никита Белов

-- 15:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Никита Белов


text:
User talk:Herenowjal

-- 15:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Herenowjal


text:
User talk:Joe Decker (alt)

-- 15:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joe Decker (alt)


text:
User talk:Sernbj

-- 15:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sernbj


text:
Thread:Comments:Shooting at diner in Carson City, Nevada/Comments from feedback form - "rip"

rip


text:
User talk:Patelsapan

-- 15:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Patelsapan


text:
User talk:Akash4659

-- 15:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Akash4659


text:
User talk:Zyomich

-- 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zyomich


text:
User talk:Bowmanville1990

-- 16:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bowmanville1990


text:
User talk:EliasMG

-- 16:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:EliasMG


text:
User talk:Sarcii 22

-- 16:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sarcii 22


text:
User talk:Lyraddro

-- 16:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lyraddro


text:
User talk:Akitsumaru3

-- 16:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Akitsumaru3


text:
User talk:Poio15

-- 16:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Poio15


text:
User talk:Ryeder87

-- 16:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ryeder87


text:
User talk:Vverbeek

-- 16:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vverbeek


text:
User talk:Trajitha

-- 17:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Trajitha


text:
User talk:Dorgret

-- 17:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dorgret


text:
User talk:Errantacademic

-- 17:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Errantacademic


text:
User talk:Aldila1949

-- 17:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aldila1949


text:
User talk:Мария Бредихина

-- 17:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Мария Бредихина


text:
User talk:KlappCK

-- 17:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KlappCK


text:
User talk:Awasthivishwajeet

-- 17:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Awasthivishwajeet


text:
User talk:Zarza1961

-- 17:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zarza1961


text:
User talk:Rrudzik

-- 17:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rrudzik


text:
User talk:Wikiwriter

-- 18:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikiwriter


text:
User talk:Eschwart

-- 18:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eschwart


text:
User talk:Teacher~enwikinews

-- 18:12, 19 September 2011 (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 Teacher. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Teacher~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 23:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Teacher~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Fedorovskaya

-- 18:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fedorovskaya


text:
User talk:Jawee007

-- 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jawee007


text:
User talk:Leandrobrunner

-- 18:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leandrobrunner


text:
User talk:Lory73

-- 18:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lory73


text:
User talk:Rahul2051rocks

-- 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rahul2051rocks


text:
User talk:Joyyapsmith

-- 18:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joyyapsmith


text:
User talk:M4road

-- 18:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:M4road


text:
User talk:Nit.boy1

-- 18:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nit.boy1


text:
User talk:Behailu~enwikinews

-- 19:00, 19 September 2011 (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 Behailu. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Behailu~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Behailu~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Futamene

-- 19:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Futamene


text:
User talk:Djjr

-- 19:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Djjr


text:
User talk:Clara Luz Roldan

-- 19:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Clara Luz Roldan


text:
User talk:LOL3333

-- 19:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:LOL3333


text:
User talk:Dakota Groves

-- 19:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dakota Groves


text:
User talk:NMaia

Esperanto articles
I realize there's a problem getting English-language news coverage of Esperanto. I'd like to help, though I haven't quite figured out how yet. See my review comments on Talk:Italian president jokingly suggests meeting with Romanian PM to be done in Esperanto. --Pi zero (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:NMaia


text:
User talk:MastaKnock

-- 19:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MastaKnock


text:
User talk:Emmelineprufrock

-- 19:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Emmelineprufrock


text:
User talk:Тетяна Погулянік

-- 19:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Тетяна Погулянік


text:
User talk:Aksraj89

-- 19:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aksraj89


text:
User talk:HeroedeLeyenda93

-- 19:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:HeroedeLeyenda93


text:
User talk:Randomblue

-- 20:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Randomblue


text:
User talk:Ayzazali

-- 20:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ayzazali


text:
User talk:Rasinac

-- 20:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rasinac


text:
User talk:Roxanamrs

-- 20:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Roxanamrs


text:
User talk:Road2larissa

-- 20:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Road2larissa


text:
User talk:Sa77if

-- 20:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sa77if


text:
User talk:Ramon herz.

-- 20:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ramon herz.


text:
User talk:AReimsbach

-- 20:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AReimsbach


text:
User talk:Kornelek62

-- 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kornelek62


text:
User talk:Hossambakr

-- 21:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hossambakr


text:
User talk:Alcides herrera guzman

-- 21:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alcides herrera guzman


text:
User talk:Valentina rodriguez ortega

-- 21:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Valentina rodriguez ortega


text:
User talk:Anjinayye

-- 21:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anjinayye


text:
User talk:Cjohnson6382

-- 21:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cjohnson6382


text:
User talk:Piotrzakpl

-- 21:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Piotrzakpl


text:
User talk:Marlonjoseramirez

-- 21:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marlonjoseramirez


text:
Camp Pendleton, California: helicopter crash kills two US marines

September 21, 2011

Two U.S. Marines were killed at, California when their AH-1W Cobra Helicopter, belonging to the , crashed on Monday at about 1 p.m. local time. The crash occurred in the southeast corner of the base, near the community of.

The Marines were pronounced dead at the scene. They were named as Captain Jeffrey Bland and First Lieutenant Thomas Heitmann.

The crash started a brush fire that reportedly spread to about 50 acres in three hours, later 120 acres, but was about 80% contained, within the base, by Monday evening. The Fallbrook Fire Department and are assisting.

The crash is the latest in a series of accidents in southern California involving flight training. An investigation is still underway to discover what caused this latest accident. The Marines have ordered an "operational pause" for all training flights for the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing. The pause also applies to aircraft training at the and  bases as well as Camp Pendleton.


text:
User talk:Big-latigo

-- 21:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Big-latigo


text:
User talk:Patricio Ibarra Solis

-- 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Patricio Ibarra Solis


text:
User talk:Valealessandro

-- 22:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Valealessandro


text:
User talk:Palluri9407

-- 22:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Palluri9407


text:
User talk:Cris.ferrari

-- 22:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cris.ferrari


text:
User talk:Sirlaxalot96

-- 22:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sirlaxalot96


text:
User talk:El mejor grupo

-- 22:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:El mejor grupo


text:
User talk:Dunkmanduck

-- 23:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dunkmanduck


text:
User talk:Jezziiik Gatiik

-- 23:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jezziiik Gatiik


text:
User talk:Blytheclaire

-- 23:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Your recent contributions are considered to be advertising/spam and have been reverted or deleted. Should you believe that your contributions are not advertising/spam, please argue your case on your talk page, or in WN:ALERT.

Further advertising/spamming may result in your editing privileges being removed. Please contribute to Wikinews in a constructive fashion instead. Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

 * Per your inquiry (to which I replied where it was made), I've inserted wording to match the speedy-deletion criterion used.
 * Note that appeal procedure is described in the above notice. --Pi zero (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Blytheclaire


text:
User talk:Lillyyu

-- 23:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lillyyu


text:
User talk:Gdiff

-- 23:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gdiff


text:
User talk:Energy Corporation

-- 23:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Energy Corporation


text:
User talk:Lchivas07

-- 00:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lchivas07


text:
User talk:Noibtno

-- 00:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Noibtno


text:
User talk:Pempette

-- 00:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pempette


text:
User talk:Heleno Joaquim

-- 01:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Heleno Joaquim


text:
Thread:Comments:Australia's Channel Seven breaches children TV standards regulations by broadcasting McDonald's advertisement/Comments from feedback form - "No Mcdonald should be fined no..."

No Mcdonald should be fined not Australia Channel Seven


text:
User talk:Questionkiddo

-- 01:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Questionkiddo


text:
User talk:JFGROUP

-- 01:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JFGROUP


text:
User talk:Nciszdabest

-- 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nciszdabest


text:
User talk:Maht0701

-- 01:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maht0701


text:
User talk:ZachMcDowell

-- 02:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ZachMcDowell


text:
User talk:Winsarg

-- 02:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Winsarg


text:
User talk:Meire Lamarão

-- 02:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Meire Lamarão


text:
User talk:Kashyop

-- 02:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kashyop


text:
User talk:CarlosDreamer

-- 02:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:CarlosDreamer


text:
User talk:C4explosive

-- 02:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:C4explosive


text:
User talk:Naser8882

-- 02:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Naser8882


text:
User talk:Alexander diccin

-- 03:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alexander diccin


text:
User talk:Ghostrides

-- 03:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ghostrides


text:
User talk:Irock12888

-- 03:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Irock12888


text:
User talk:Pazouzou

-- 03:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pazouzou


text:
User talk:Jakapandhada

-- 03:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jakapandhada


text:
User talk:GuruT

-- 04:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:GuruT


text:
User talk:Melesse Spirit

-- 04:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Melesse Spirit


text:
User talk:Hiddenhunter11

-- 04:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hiddenhunter11


text:
User talk:Meocon1411

-- 04:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Meocon1411


text:
User talk:Amiee hall

-- 04:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Amiee hall


text:
User talk:Zeswani

-- 05:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zeswani


text:
User talk:Mavez

-- 05:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mavez


text:
User talk:Chance02

-- 05:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chance02


text:
User talk:Divineale

-- 06:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Divineale


text:
User talk:Solrac0489

-- 06:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Solrac0489


text:
User talk:Basclain

-- 06:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Basclain


text:
User talk:Fastpatrol

-- 06:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fastpatrol


text:
Thread:Comments:Southampton City Council votes against water fluoridation/If petitions don't work.../reply

Or you might just end up like the tax protestors in the U.S. and take it to court. Be sure to be litigants in person and include lots of pseudolegal arguments. Dental cavities are a human right! Fight the power!


text:
User talk:SatanbI4

-- 07:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:SatanbI4


text:
User talk:Nchaudhri

-- 07:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nchaudhri


text:
User talk:Robert198

-- 07:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robert198


text:
User talk:Sixtyweb

-- 07:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sixtyweb


text:
User talk:Stalagmity

-- 07:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Stalagmity


text:
User talk:Dimitr 88

-- 07:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dimitr 88


text:
User talk:Garrettchap1

-- 08:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Garrettchap1


text:
User talk:Xulfiqarameen

-- 08:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xulfiqarameen


text:
User talk:Suhail162

-- 08:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Suhail162


text:
User talk:Arunsinghtr

-- 09:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arunsinghtr


text:
User talk:Pavka1993

-- 09:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pavka1993


text:
User talk:Marcopaco

-- 09:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marcopaco


text:
User talk:GroeneGertjan

-- 09:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:GroeneGertjan


text:
User talk:Achyutankit

-- 09:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Achyutankit


text:
User talk:Irfankhan.04

-- 09:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Irfankhan.04


text:
User talk:Drsalmankhan

-- 10:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drsalmankhan


text:
User talk:Afsaaaneh

-- 10:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Afsaaaneh


text:
User talk:Gawnonacid

-- 10:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gawnonacid


text:
User talk:Hk2000

-- 10:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hk2000


text:
User talk:Juergen5602

-- 10:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Juergen5602


text:
User talk:Victorino96

-- 10:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Victorino96


text:
User talk:Viking1808

-- 10:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Viking1808


text:
User talk:Jakez

-- 10:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jakez


text:
User talk:Nick Fishman

-- 10:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nick Fishman


text:
User talk:Dyve

-- 10:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dyve


text:
User talk:SnakeDrop

-- 11:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:SnakeDrop


text:
User talk:Jonassoeby

-- 11:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jonassoeby


text:
User talk:Wessam eng

-- 11:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wessam eng


text:
User talk:Avelach

-- 11:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Avelach


text:
User talk:Mishosy

-- 11:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mishosy


text:
User talk:Vingtage

-- 11:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vingtage


text:
User talk:Emolad

-- 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Emolad


text:
User talk:Wikisamia

-- 12:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikisamia


text:
User talk:Nbjani68

-- 12:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nbjani68


text:
User talk:Wikitorrens

-- 12:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikitorrens


text:
User talk:RJMang

-- 12:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:RJMang


text:
User talk:Wikiwriterz

-- 13:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikiwriterz


text:
User talk:簑原圭介

-- 13:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:簑原圭介


text:
User talk:Mlangfeld

-- 13:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mlangfeld


text:
User talk:Bennhi91

-- 13:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bennhi91


text:
User talk:Pascalbrax

-- 13:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pascalbrax


text:
User talk:Elenmp

-- 13:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elenmp


text:
User talk:Kasilingam siva

-- 13:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kasilingam siva


text:
User talk:Karlschutte

-- 13:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Karlschutte


text:
User talk:Nagarajgowd.ediga

-- 13:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nagarajgowd.ediga


text:
User talk:Siddh bhatta v

-- 13:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Siddh bhatta v


text:
User talk:Drphreddee

-- 13:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drphreddee


text:
User talk:Muda~enwikinews

-- 13:55, 20 September 2011 (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 Muda. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Muda~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)

title: User talk:Muda~enwikinews


text:
News International offers £3 million phone-hacking settlement to family of murder victim

September 22, 2011

The family of murdered UK thirteen-year-old Milly Dowler, whose phone was hacked by journalists of the News of the World, have been offered £3 million compensation by ’s, in settlement negotiations currently under way.

UK newspaper  revealed the phone hacking earlier this year. After Dowler was reported missing in 2002, her voicemail messages were listened to and several deleted, creating the impression she might still be alive.

The £3 million on offer reportedly includes £1 million to charity. The rest would go directly to the family. The Guardian reports the Dowler's lawyers were believed to be looking for about ₤3.5 million.

News International stated they were "in advanced negotiations" and "hope to conclude the discussion as quickly as possible."

Rupert Murdoch personally met with the Dowler family earlier in the year to offer them his apologies for the actions of his News of the World paper. News of the World ceased publishing after discovery of the Dowler hacking and other similar incidents.


text:
User talk:FrancaB1945

-- 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:FrancaB1945


text:
User talk:Bhanuvrat

-- 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bhanuvrat


text:
User talk:Anzhi86

-- 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anzhi86


text:
User talk:Davinderpalsinghvirk

-- 14:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Davinderpalsinghvirk


text:
User talk:Matela9999

-- 14:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Matela9999


text:
User talk:3Félix

-- 14:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:3Félix


text:
User talk:DemonicInfluence

-- 14:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DemonicInfluence


text:
User talk:Victorzito

-- 15:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Victorzito


text:
User talk:郑东

-- 15:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:郑东


text:
User talk:Karla leon pinela

-- 15:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Karla leon pinela


text:
User talk:Oscarcarvacho

-- 15:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oscarcarvacho


text:
User talk:NGO19

-- 15:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:NGO19


text:
User talk:Rojypala

-- 15:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rojypala


text:
User talk:Angelorenzi

-- 15:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Angelorenzi


text:
User talk:JohnTurl

-- 15:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JohnTurl


text:
User talk:Elem1

-- 15:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elem1


text:
User talk:Matthewpun1204

-- 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Matthewpun1204


text:
User talk:Elogozzo

-- 15:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elogozzo


text:
User talk:Bshaier

-- 15:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bshaier


text:
User talk:Kdoseck2008

-- 15:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kdoseck2008


text:
User talk:Smallchief

-- 16:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Smallchief


text:
User talk:Tgvr531

-- 16:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tgvr531


text:
User talk:Gizbo

-- 16:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gizbo


text:
User talk:Convallaria majalis

-- 16:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Convallaria majalis


text:
User talk:Suzie slb

-- 16:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Suzie slb


text:
User talk:Mujtabakaleem

-- 16:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mujtabakaleem


text:
User talk:Disturany

-- 16:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Disturany


text:
User talk:Germanweather

-- 17:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Germanweather


text: User talk:68.97.62.147

title: User talk:68.97.62.147


text:
User talk:Martin1978

-- 17:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Martin1978


text:
User talk:Anirudh98765

-- 17:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anirudh98765


text:
User:Martin1978

wikipedia:de:user:Martin1978

title: User:Martin1978


text:
User talk:Apbhat11391

-- 17:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Apbhat11391


text:
User talk:Zorroguevara

-- 17:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zorroguevara


text:
User talk:Mouhamed.bamba

-- 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mouhamed.bamba


text:
User talk:Peeeteeer22

-- 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Peeeteeer22


text:
User talk:JasonBludd

-- 17:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JasonBludd


text:
Thread:Comments:Funeral held for former Zambian President Frederick Chiluba/Attributes to the second president of Zambia.

Dr F.T.J.Chiluba was man who had a heart,passion and love for his country.It was just unfortunate his friends did him bad but thanks be to Former President Rupiah banda who I can describe as a Father of that time.


text:
User talk:Pedro Henrique Guerra

-- 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pedro Henrique Guerra


text:
User talk:HipHollywood

-- 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:HipHollywood


text:
User talk:Golan22

-- 18:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Golan22


text:
User talk:הנגבי

-- 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:הנגבי


text:
User talk:Prohabitar

-- 18:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Prohabitar


text:
User talk:Guitarra de Arena

-- 18:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Guitarra de Arena


text:
User talk:Tom walker

-- 18:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tom walker


text:
User talk:Sérgio Vieira

-- 19:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sérgio Vieira


text:
User talk:ZellOf4nt

-- 19:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ZellOf4nt


text:
User talk:P.hernandezv

-- 19:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:P.hernandezv


text:
User talk:Mecoboy109

-- 19:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mecoboy109


text:
User talk:Ertandemiral

-- 19:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ertandemiral


text:
User talk:Mario10954

-- 19:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mario10954


text:
User talk:Angelicasouzacorro

-- 19:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Angelicasouzacorro


text:
User talk:Qawwali

-- 20:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Qawwali


text:
User talk:Kunglaovi

-- 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kunglaovi


text:
User talk:Yinfo

-- 20:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yinfo


text:
User talk:Regiondiana

-- 20:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Regiondiana


text:
User talk:Yeahed

-- 20:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yeahed


text:
User talk:Masalo 321

-- 20:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Masalo 321


text:
User talk:Doña Cocorica

-- 20:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Doña Cocorica


text:
User talk:JenJen422

-- 21:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JenJen422


text:
User talk:NafySocio

-- 21:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:NafySocio


text:
User talk:Abdulrahman Alammari

-- 21:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abdulrahman Alammari


text:
User talk:Ryankim~enwikinews

-- 21:41, 20 September 2011 (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 Ryankim. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ryankim~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 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Ryankim~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Dionicio Feliz

-- 21:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dionicio Feliz


text:
User talk:لطفى للمحاماة

-- 21:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:لطفى للمحاماة


text:
User talk:Awatifcom999

-- 22:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Awatifcom999


text:
User talk:Thejhon95

-- 22:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thejhon95


text:
User talk:LinChung

-- 22:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:LinChung


text:
User talk:عبدالسلام الفيتوري فريجه

-- 22:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:عبدالسلام الفيتوري فريجه


text:
User talk:Lezgistxa

-- 22:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lezgistxa


text:
User talk:Tkteun

-- 23:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tkteun


text:
User talk:Jsko

-- 23:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jsko


text:
Thread:Comments:Southampton City Council votes against water fluoridation/If petitions don't work.../reply (2)

If a person wishes to have a dental cavity, yes, it is an absolute human right that they be permitted to have one if they so choose.


text:
User talk:Mike450

-- 23:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mike450


text:
User talk:Lankatimes

-- 23:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lankatimes


text:
User talk:Metalman59

-- 23:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Metalman59


text:
User talk:Fedeherculano

-- 23:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fedeherculano


text:
User talk:Slyhans

-- 00:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Slyhans


text:
User talk:Mememomo1009

-- 00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mememomo1009


text:
User talk:Alexeybru

-- 01:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alexeybru


text:
User talk:Cedricwing

-- 01:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cedricwing


text:
User talk:西不是东

-- 01:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:西不是东


text:
User talk:Grayfox26

-- 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Grayfox26


text:
User talk:Mason54724

-- 01:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mason54724


text:
User talk:Professordom

-- 01:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Professordom


text:
User talk:Valeria hacetarea

-- 01:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Valeria hacetarea


text: Comments:Chiocchio is a chit

title: Comments:Chiocchio is a chit


text:
Thread:Comments:Chiocchio is a chit/Comments from feedback form - "yeah"

yeah —173.248.216.76 (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Mommyceo

-- 01:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mommyceo


text:
User talk:Gemelomalo

-- 01:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gemelomalo


text:
User talk:Nelson91649

-- 02:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nelson91649


text:
User talk:Doula23

-- 02:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Doula23


text:
User talk:Rachel Mayaut

-- 03:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rachel Mayaut


text:
User talk:Gabiirachid

-- 03:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gabiirachid


text:
User talk:סירקונירלה

-- 03:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:סירקונירלה


text:
User talk:KellieFlan

-- 04:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KellieFlan


text:
User talk:Ngoctiepoto

-- 04:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ngoctiepoto


title: User:UOW4075110


text:
User talk:Eka.aryadi

-- 04:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eka.aryadi


text:
User talk:Hamza Al Khudaidi

-- 04:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hamza Al Khudaidi


text:
User talk:Modicagroup

-- 05:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Modicagroup


text:
User talk:Loucella

-- 05:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Loucella


text:
User talk:Odonoghue30

-- 05:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Odonoghue30


text:
User talk:けちょ

-- 05:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:けちょ


text:
User talk:Shifco

-- 05:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shifco


text:
User talk:Hukimons Fan

-- 05:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hukimons Fan


text:
User talk:Gvocale

-- 05:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gvocale


text:
User talk:Maheshpgandhi

-- 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maheshpgandhi


text:
User talk:PrernaJha

-- 06:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PrernaJha


text:
User talk:Upcomplaygame

-- 06:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Upcomplaygame


text:
User talk:Janna van B

-- 06:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Janna van B


text: Talk:Camp Pendleton, California: helicopter crash kills two US marines


text: Comments:Camp Pendleton, California: helicopter crash kills two US marines


text:
User talk:Ykosek

-- 06:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ykosek


text:
User talk:Amandeep.kapila

-- 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Amandeep.kapila


text:
User talk:Fabre91

-- 06:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fabre91


text:
User talk:Dashrath Panmand

-- 07:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dashrath Panmand


text:
User talk:Sweeper72

-- 07:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sweeper72


text:
User talk:HRGeesemount

-- 07:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:HRGeesemount


text:
User talk:Kosatyj

-- 07:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kosatyj


text:
User talk:Jyothi.S

-- 07:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jyothi.S


text:
User talk:Gagansohi143

-- 07:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gagansohi143


text:
User talk:Incubus87

-- 07:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Incubus87


text:
User talk:Jaymyang

-- 07:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jaymyang


text:
User talk:Bobbiejamwal

-- 08:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bobbiejamwal


text:
User talk:Dar2dar2

-- 08:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dar2dar2


text:
User talk:Carlomonsanto

-- 08:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Carlomonsanto


text:
User talk:Jagat neupane

-- 09:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jagat neupane


text:
User talk:Rahulsheth21

-- 09:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rahulsheth21


text:
User talk:Gencyazar

-- 09:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gencyazar


text:
User talk:Derouaz djalal

-- 09:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Derouaz djalal


text:
User talk:Taranov2011

-- 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Taranov2011


text:
User talk:Tiezhihai

-- 09:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tiezhihai


text:
User talk:MariusN10

-- 09:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MariusN10


text:
User talk:Itariuz

-- 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Itariuz


text:
User talk:Aan imoets

-- 09:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aan imoets


text:
User talk:41pdž

-- 09:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:41pdž


text:
User talk:Telfah ahmed

-- 10:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Telfah ahmed


text:
User talk:Dipak timalsina

-- 11:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dipak timalsina


text:
User talk:Kate2102

-- 11:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kate2102


text:
User talk:Sridhar1000

-- 11:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sridhar1000


text:
Thread:Comments:Out of space in outer space: Special report on NASA's 'space junk' plans/recycling the "space junk"/reply (3)

More practical might be to bring small quantities down and auction it off as a way of recovering some small part of the cost of other space missions; I have no idea how much it might cost to bring down a spacecraft with any significant payload - nor how practical this might be. A small box of bits might be realistic, however.


text:
User talk:My love is love

-- 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:My love is love


text:
User talk:Peder Isak

-- 11:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Peder Isak


text:
User talk:Pushpi.rocks

-- 12:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pushpi.rocks


text:
User talk:Desmodromico

-- 12:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Desmodromico


text:
User talk:Magister-Mage

-- 12:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Magister-Mage


text:
User talk:Mina-ba

-- 12:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mina-ba


text:
User talk:Assurnasirpal

-- 12:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Assurnasirpal


text:
User talk:Arvind Raykwar

-- 12:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arvind Raykwar


text:
User talk:Khanhvy13

-- 13:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Khanhvy13


text:
User talk:Robert Pacheco

-- 13:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robert Pacheco


text:
User talk:Berndcatrin

-- 13:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Berndcatrin


text:
User talk:Nikita Ladnov

-- 13:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nikita Ladnov


text:
Wikinews:Accreditation requests/Avenue X at Cicero

Closed as Unsuccessful. Tyrol5 (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Avenue X at Cicero (talk)

 * Name: Tom Taylor
 * Location: New Delhi
 * Areas of interest: Politics; India
 * Reason: I've recently set up an interview with  winner, and hope to do many more soon but I will require the Accreditation tag for that.
 * Accomplishments: My 3 published articles on Wikinews; ; ; and among others.
 * Contact information: AvenueXatCicero@gmail.com
 * User ID: 283024
 * Applied on: 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments and votes

 * not so sure, so far you haven't done Original Reporting. may change my vote if someone else has another opinion. アンパロ Io ti odio! 04:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You joined here less than two months ago, and yes....you've contributed some.....great(seriously)! But, you'd be surprised what you can accomplish even if you don't have accreditation. I think you could show that you can "grind it out" a bit longer....and then apply for accreditation. --Bddpaux (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really an active writer at the moment ...  — fetch · comms  02:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Nnu-12-22100539

-- 13:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nnu-12-22100539


text:
User talk:Anitajeglic

-- 13:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anitajeglic


text:
User talk:Priyanka Bhoyar

-- 14:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Priyanka Bhoyar