text:
User:Stevertigo~enwikinews/monobook.css

/* start tooltip code */

div.info { position:relative; /*required */ z-index:24; /*required */ background-color:yellow; /*use any color you like */ cursor:help /*optional, or use another cursor */ }

div.info:hover { z-index:25; /*required */ background-color:pink /*use any color you like */ }

div.info:hover div.urlexpansion { display:block; /*required */ position:absolute; /*required */ /*border and size specifications, change as you like */ top:2em; left:2em; width:15em; /* colors, change as you like */ border:1px solid #0cf; background-color:#cff; color:#000; }

/* end tooltip code */

body {background: #273665 !important;}
 * 1) content {background: #FFFFF9 !important;}

a {text-decoration:none;}

 * 1) bodyContent a.external {text-decoration:none; color: #3e71c6; background: none; padding: 0; }
 * 2) bodyContent a.extiw, #bodyContent a.extiw:active {text-decoration:none; color: #3366bb; }

/* No external link icon */
 * 1) bodyContent a[href ^="http://"] {background: none; padding-right: 0px;}

border:none; background-color:#FFFFF9; padding:0px; margin-top: 0em; clear: both; }
 * 1) catlinks {

/* no headers in the sidebar */ .portlet h5 {display: none;} .portlet a {color: white;} .pBody { background: none; border:none}

/* bottom tab styling (not for IE currently) */ margin: -0.3em 0 0 11.5em; white-space:nowrap; line-height: 1.1em; overflow: visible; border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0 0 0 1em; list-style: none; font-size: 95%; }   display: inline; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-top: none; padding: 0.1em 0 0 0; margin: 0 0.3em 0 0; overflow: visible; background: White; }   border-color: #fabd23; padding: 0.2em 0 0 0; }   background-color: White; color: #005189; border: none; padding: 0.3em 0.8em 0 0.8em; text-decoration: none; text-transform: lowercase; position: relative; margin: 0; }   z-index: 3; text-decoration: none; }   padding-left: 0.4em; padding-right: 0.4em; } /* offsets to distinguish the tab groups */ li#mytabs-ca-talk { margin-right: 1.6em; } li#mytabs-ca-watch { margin-left: 1.6em; }
 * 1) mytabs {
 * 1) mytabs .hiddenStructure { display: none; }
 * 2) mytabs li {
 * 1) mytabs li.selected {
 * 1) mytabs li a {
 * 1) mytabs li.selected a { z-index: 3; }
 * 2) mytabs .new a { color:#ba0000; }
 * 3) mytabs li a:hover {
 * 1) mytabs h5 { display: none; }
 * 2) mytabs li.istalk { margin-right: 0; }
 * 3) mytabs li.istalk a { padding-right: 0.5em; }
 * 4) mytabs-ca-addsection a {

/* remove comment tags if bottom tabs should be rounded as well in moz */ /* #mytabs li, #mytabs li a { -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 1em; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 1em; }*/

/* highlighted N in recent changes*/
 * 1) newarticlemark {color: #FFFFFF; background: #FF0000;}

/* Floating sidebar from 287 */

 * 1) p-personal { position:fixed; top:0em;z-index:3; background-color:#273665; }
 * 2) p-nav     { position:fixed;  top:5em; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa;z-index:3;background-color:#273665; }
 * 3) p-search  { position:fixed;  top:0em; z-index:3;background-color:#273665; }
 * 4) p-tb      { position:fixed;  top:15em; z-index:3; border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background-

color:#273665;}
 * 1) p-lang    { top:31em; z-index:2;  border-top: 1px solid #aaaaaa; background-color:#273665;}
 * 2) footer    { display:none; }

color: #ffffff; }   color: #ffffff;position:fixed; top:5em; z-index:5; }
 * 1) sites a {
 * 1) sites {

color: #ffffff; }   color: #ffffff;position:fixed; top:27em; z-index:5; }
 * 1) smalllinks a {
 * 1) smalllinks {

title: User:Stevertigo~enwikinews/monobook.css


text:
Wikinews:Site news

 Wikinews news

ja:ウィキニュース:サイトレポート

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

title: Wikinews:Site news


text:
Kerik nominated as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security

U.S. President George W. Bush nominated Bernard B. Kerik, the police commissioner of the during the, to succeed Tom Ridge as the.

Kerik resigned as police commissioner two months following the terrorist attacks, citing the desire to spend more time with his family, but has since kept a very high profile. Following the invasion of Iraq, he chose to lead the training of Iraqi law enforcement. He campaigned for President George W. Bush in the and delivered a prime time speech at the.

Among other security qualifications, he has served in the, as narcotics detective in the NYPD and as private security worker in.

Kerik faces the daunting task of running the DHS, an agency assembled from 22 other agencies with over 180,000 employees.


text:
User:Merriam~enwikinews/wikinews notes

Alternative_Review_Process_Proposal

title: User:Merriam~enwikinews/wikinews notes


text:
User talk:Tomos

It appears you were editing template:review at the same time... Since they looked similar to yours, I just pasted my changes over - please rework as you see fit... -Stevertigo

Thanks. If you see any room for improvement on them, I appreciate your help, too. Tomos 06:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fact Checking
I wanted to commend you for doing a great job of doing systematic fact-checking of articles. Your work on checking USL v. BSDi settlement agreement unsealed is exactly what I think verification needs to be for Wikinews to be not just up to date but also accurate. -- IlyaHaykinson 22:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thank you. :-) It takes time and patience. I think the same kind of thing could be done at the stage of writing, too. See, for example, Talk:Lycos launches screensaver to increase spammers' bills. Tomos 02:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sysop status granted
Hi Tomos,

I've made you a sysop. Thanks for helping out.--Eloquence 01:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Tomos 09:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

TS Media Contacts.
I nominated it before the current discussions.. Maybe it should be moved to a project namespace -- like Tsunami Help/Media contacts. As long as it's off the main namespace and not readily searchable (or random page generatable) as a news item. -- Davodd | Talk 05:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have the same concern as you do, and the idea sounds good to me. You made comment on Talk:Tsunami Help, I will write there. Tomos 07:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment ...
... on the Trio story -- and thanks for taking on this Tsunami Help turmoil. Truth be told, I'd rather focus on building up writing resources for new and inexperienced writers (and the reputation) of Wikinews. You'll find me puttering around with writing policy, writing guides and such for the next few months -- as I try to develop ways to do original reportage that is completely fact-checkable via internet URL sources. Trio was a first step in that direction. I'm glad you liked the result. -- Davodd | Talk 05:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was wondering how and where to start, etc. You kind of initiated the discussions and it got things rolling. I'm happy to do what I can. And I can see you can contribute a lot on those aspects of wikinews. Looking forward to seeing suggestions and drafts. Tomos 07:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the Indian Sensex plagiarism
It's disappointing that the original author thinks lack of time is a valid excuse for ripping off another site.

Someone even tried to use an anonymous IP address to hide the evidence.

Thanks for keeping out a sharp eye for this type of thing.

— DV 05:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um.. to be honest, I personally did not know if that was kind of bad enough to warrant deletion.. Fair use is a complex stuff I am still learning. But thank you for your kind words. :) Tomos 07:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Replies
While the specific issue was resolved, I'm afraid my opinion regarding Davodd remains that the user is a little too quick to judgement, and needs some time to develop a more relaxed approach to Wikinews. I've seen great improvements in the past few days, but I would prefer to see change over a longer period of time.

As for 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, as far as I can tell there is no copyvio involved; all material which was copy/pasted was under GFDL, and therefore available for copying and pasting. However, it may have been in violation of Wikinews policy. If that is the case, then of course the optional undelete would be a better choice. One thing to consider, however, is that a number of edits have been applied *since* the reversion, and I do not recall if the optional undelete allows for undeleting the later version only. (not to mention this would violate the spirit of the GFDL if it did, since the edit histories might then be lost.) - Amgine 08:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Regarding Davodd, I understand your concern and I also think that he may adjust himself over time. Or it is simply the shock of encountering the state of wiki as an experienced wikipedian and professional journalist. I wouldn't be surprised though, if we come to understand him better and realize that he is very suited for an administrator. He obviously has many strengths and I am sure some of them are not yet to be presented.
 * Regarding copying and pasting of GFDL'd document, I don't think it is that obvious.. Have you read pages like w:Wikipedia:Copyrights and w:Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying? More straightforward reading of the GFDL is that unless we meet certain requirements, we cannot copy and paste texts from Wikipedia. Tomos 13:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyone happy? Well, I am.
Tomos,

Thanks for bringing your comments on that particular talk page to my attention. Basically, I'm happy with the solution that you propose, which involves moving things into the Wikinews namespace. I'm not sure that that's really what it's designed for, but it's an acceptable compromise for now.

I would support the establishment of policy in the future which states that Wikinews is only for Wikinews, and not for well-intentioned projects like this, however. If people running similar projects in the future want to use Wikimedia to coordinate their efforts, then I would ask them to first ask for permission on meta:, or from the foundation itself, to find them a home where they're anticipated, rather than simply squatting as they did.

However, that's all worries for the future. Thankyou for keeping a level head and attempting to bring about compromise on this issue, in the true Wiki spirit. I think that your arrangement will work to the satisfaction of all parties involved.

Lankiveil 06:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Thank you too for your nice words and appreciation of what I am trying. I hope I am not far off. If I am, I hope you would intervene and hlep.

Regarding the future, I agree most of your ideas. But I think Jimbo received email about this and said yes at some point. That is perhaps why people started coming without asking anything to the community, I am guessing.. Tomos 12:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Activity, policy, and futures
Could you join #wikinews? The activity on Wikinews seems to be in free-fall, due primarily to almost no article development imo. I am not contributing due to policy questions, which are not being addressed due to lack of activity, etc. - Amgine 03:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I'm coming now. Tomos 03:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines/Deletion guideline
Thought you might want to take a look-see? - Amgine 04:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Heavy Lift Delta Launch Issues
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you; got caught up in other journalistic pursuits. Anyway, about the Heavy Lift Delta article. The first one was screwed up. It contained copyrighted text, was poorly written, and without sources. I edited it to fix the mistakes, but somebody had alreay written a copyright issue comment on it and an admin or mod, forget which, said the article had to be re-written because of the copyright comment. I then proceeded to rewrite the article from scratch and added the appropriate sources under a new heading. Samatheson 04:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That time of the year again
This is a form letter that I am putting on the talk page of every admin: As you may know, we are approaching April 1. In many cultures, this is a time for pranksters to pull April Fools jokes on others. Because of the ease of editing, wiki projects tend to fall prey to these types of pranks rather easily. Let this be a reminder to us all to keep a special lookout for hoaxes, rampant fiction and other random acts of content vandalism between now and April 2. Good luck, and hopefully not too much damage will be done. -- Davodd | Talk 07:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Hi Tomos. Nice to see you editing on Wikinews again. Just wanted to say hi :) -- IlyaHaykinson 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm ashamed of my long, unexcused absense.. but nice to know someone still remembers me and even welcomes my return. A proof that this is a nice place! :) Tomos 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi Tomos! I hadn't seen your edits, but glad to see you as well! -  Amgine | talk en.WN 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Hi, Amgine. I'm glad to see that you and IlyaHaykinson are stil around and active. Nice to see you again!

user Nyarlathotep
I thought this might be confusing when I posted it. Here it goes: an "oppose" means you do not want him de-admined. A "support" means you do want him de-admined. From there he would go up for adminship again where it would be the opposite. But this is just the first vote.

2. You might be correct here, but since the voting has already begun I think it's probably too late. Something to remember for next time I guess. thanks. --MateoP 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I tried to offer clarification on the RfA page for others who might get confused. I hope attempt would not create a source of confusion, but if you could replace my awkward explanation with your words, that would be good. Tomos 23:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Rfda
This is a message to inform you that I have added every administrator to the Rfda section on WN:A. This is not personal and I feel as if the community, who did not have the option of voting for or against most of the administrators, should be able to choose who they want to be in charge. I also want to say that I value everyones work on this site and I know that everyone does their best. I hope that none of you will take this personally and I hope that all of us will continue to work together. Jason Safoutin 12:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hiya
Yes, I'm in IRC. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 00:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is a bit too late to come here, but I was not locked out. That guy, whoever it was, was fake. Tomos 07:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleting broken redirects
Hi there... I noticed that you've deleted some broken redirects. While this is perfectly allowed, it's best to not delete them. See, deleting them adds work to the server even though they're not causing any trouble being broken redirects. So you should either fix them or leave them alone. —     21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see. I've read Speedy deletion guidelines and followed it, but perhaps we should change it.

I was also wondering if it was necessary to delete talk pages of a deleted article. Some cases, it does carry some useful information, such as neutrality disputes. Would you say they are better left undeleted as well?

I will go ahead and suggests a change for speedy deletion anyway. Thank you for the tip. And am I right in assuming that now that I have deleted almost all of them, I should leave them deleted?

Tomos 22:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's really no need to change policy: while deleting broken redirects is perfectly valid, it doesn't really accomplish anything and so adds useless work for the server. And since you already deleted them, just leave them deleted. As for talk pages of deleted articles, there's generally no need to keep them, unless they contain things like deletion debates that aren't recorded anywhere else. —     23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Deleting broken redirects is a good thing, it prevents a user from click a blue link and discovering that the page does not infact exist.--Cspurrier 03:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, it is not a big issue. The chance of someone coming across a broken redirect is probably small, and it seems Messedrocker is of the opinion that server load increase from the deletion of broken redirects is small as well.

But it is kind of inefficient that we inform admins through personal communication that broken redirects should remain undeleted because of server load while the speedy deletion guideline says you can delete them. It is more efficient to change the guideline, or at least inform them of the server load issue on the guideline. Tomos 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Blogger

 * I created it as Liverpool Evil Cabal. It was FellowWikiNews who renamed it.--Irate 15:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

New Policy has users up in smoke
Hello. I am not sure if you check this page anymore, but I thought you might be interested as to what is going on here at Wikinews: Image use policy/New wikimedia policy action plan. I am outraged as well as others...do you have an opinion? DragonFire1024 09:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I do check this page from time to time. I will take a look at the page you pointed. Tomos 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate articles
Thanks for noticing the duplicate articles on "Chemical Ali". However, please don't tag both as merge. This tag is a "dispute" tag and unpublishes the article. Tag only the newer version, or in this case (they were created in the same minute) tag the lesser developed story. Thanks. --SVTCobra 12:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips. I will do that way next time (a further reply on SVTCobra's talk page). Tomos 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Your updates to Template messages/Disputes look fine to me. I noticed that the instructions call for the Dupe template to be used on the talk (collaboration) page. I haven't been around too long, but I haven't seen anyone put it there. Oh, well. Thanks for your work.--SVTCobra 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

hi
Haven't seen you about for a while. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. :) Thanks for the greeting. I am still not quite active, though.. Tomos 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Deadminship
Hi Tomos, just letting you know that I have initiated a discussion about potentially removing your sysop access due to inactivity. The discussion is at Requests_for_permissions.

Regards, Daniel (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 * The desysop request was closed as no consensus, your administrator rights have been retained. -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 14:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

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

 * Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

--Pi zero (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tomos


text:
User:Lyellin~enwikinews/IPW

Hello and welcome to Wikinews!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * Create a user page by clicking on the "Create an account or log in" button in the upper right hand corner. That way you can vote in polls we have, and other users can know who you are. You'll also have a user page where you can add information about yourself, and a discussion page where others can contact you.
 * Find out how to get started, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
 * Eventually, you might want to read the tutorial on writing an article, and check out the Style guide and Content guide.
 * If you need |help, post a question on the page's discussion page or ask me on my talk page. I always enjoy answering questions if I can!
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck! Lyellin

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

title: User:Lyellin~enwikinews/IPW


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/Archive1

I like: the reader of Wikinews can cross information among different sources easyly. Normal newspapers can not do that.---User:carlosar Nov 15 03:42:01 UTC 2004

What should we do if a information from some source(ex:cited newspaper) is wrong or no neutral? ---User:carlosar Nov 15 03:42:01 UTC 2004

 * Not a problem: If the source is biased, then one can offset it by using multiple sources, as well as reporting on the various sources themselves (e.g. "source X alleges that blah, blah, blah ... ").  If the source is wrong, it depends on how apparent that is, if it is obvious or contradicts other reports, then cover all the bases.  If a report generally considered to be accurate is later proved to be false, then this can be covered later with the revelation of this (e.g. "new evidence has come to light from source X that event Y was, in fact, blah, blah, blah ... contrary to initial reports of Z").  Sometimes stories develop this way, it comes with the territory.  --BenM 12:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The links pointed by the article must be checked? ---User:carlosar Nov 15 03:42:01 UTC 2004

Major events at Main Page could be random. What do you think? ---User:carlosar Nov 15 03:42:01 UTC 2004

 * I would prefer to see all the major events listed together on the main page, instead of seeing one randomly chosen at a time. Foeke 07:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Sometimes this can be a trouble. What is/is not a major event? carlosar Nov 15 12:21:01 UTC 2004

 * Ditto. Ambi 07:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the same problem arises when you want to randomly display a major event. I was referring to the random displaying, rather than the definition of a major event. Foeke 12:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The one thing that strikes me about this most of all is that it really needs some article naming conventions. How about putting the date in the title for one thing? In addition, some of the titles for articles so far sound like they'd be more appropriate for Wikipedia. Ambi 07:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree. For this to be worthwhile as a source later, dating the titles will be essential. Danny 11:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure that dates are needed as part of the title. If the title is the article's headline, this should be able to be made unique without a date. What would be helpful is being able to put the date somewhere as metadata, allowing people to search for articles within a particular timeframe. Angela 11:45, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Making the date part of the headline doesn't really improve searchability -- title searches are painful, particularly since the index is limited in word length. All it would accomplish is make titles harder to link to, and require frequent page moves as a story shifts from one date to the next. The way the issue is currently handled can be seen on our first real example article, President of China lunches with Brazilian President. The date is at the beginning of the first paragraph, and at the bottom of the article as a category. On the category pages, we can see each event for a particular date, and we can add navigation links to browse from one to the next.

 * In the future, as Angela said, we will want the date to be metadata. For this, something like Wikidata will be necessary. For now, we'll have to make do with what is there, which is the category system. The next technical change, which I'll probably have to do myself, is displaying the articles in a category by the date of the last update. This would allow us to generate the various entry pages automatically. But the last update is different from the story publication date. The creation date could be displayed alongside the last update, but this is still not the most accurate. The publication date cannot easily be evaluated because the act of publication is a human wiki editing act at the present time.--Eloquence 12:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I see the point, but this strikes me as a rather short-sighted approach. What happens next time the President of China lunches with the Brazilian President? Ambi 23:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Simple - we disambiguate with the date when needed.--Eloquence

More comments
I have many objections, but I will try to focus on the main one.

First, I would like that the approval process of the article be clarified. There is currently this process offered
 * 1) Article development, in which a community of volunteers works on the text and media
 * 2) What happen when articles are original report ? How are others allowed to edit it ?
 * 3) Is there a minimal time to respect for that process ?
 * 4) Who decide if and when to put the tag:review ? Is it one person only, or a committee of editors ?
 * 5) Final review, in which the accuracy, neutrality, copyright status, legality and comprehensiveness of the article are verified
 * 6) Again, is there a minimal time allowed for review, or a minimum number of people ?
 * 7) Who decide when this time is over and put the publish tag ? Is it one person ? One sysop ? A committee of editors ? A sub committee per topic ? A director of publication ?
 * 8) At this stage, is adding major content (development) allowed ? If so, does the article goes back to development stage ? If so, are the reviews cancelled ? If it is not allowed to go back to development, may a parallel article be developped ? What happen in this case ? May an article be rejected for too numerous flaws ?
 * 9) Article publication, in which the content is prominently linked and officially labeled as a published Wikinews article. Corrections and updates can still be made for a limited time if they are clearly pointed out alongside the article.
 * 10) Will all editors be allowed to modify the article or only a limited group ? Who decide what is minor and what is major ? What happen if one editor does not agree with a minor change ? Does the article goes back to development ? Is it still online if there is an edit war on it ? What happen if one editor consider the article is not neutral and has not been reviewed enough ?
 * 11) Will only publish articles be visible by anyone, or all articles ?
 * 12) Archival, in which the article is permanently frozen, for the purpose of citation. Corrections and updates can still be linked to, but the article text itself may not be changed.
 * 13) Do we keep the article as if if grossly wrong or grossly biased ? How will corrections be linked to ? What happen if a protected article is said a cp violation or a defaming content ?

What do we do if though there is 5 editors, 1 is editing the political part only, and is biaised ? Who else than him can approve the page ? What do we do toward a pov pusher ? Who hold the legal responsability and right to modify a protected article after its protection in case of a legal problem afterwards ? Does a sysop is just a housecleaner, or is a sysop a sort of editor in chief with more "right" to declare an article correct than others ? If not, how will we define who are those with the right to decide what is neutral from what is not ? What do we do if a project is under the control of a small "approval" team and restrict reviewing ?

Na, better that I stop here. Perhaps the most important point to me it that I do not believe we will do any breaking news report in a neutral way. Breaking news strive on speed of report, and nearly 4 years of Wikipedia show us that NPOV strive on slowness, carefull rework by dozen of hands. Publishing an article in say 24 hours, then freezing after a few more days is great, but I doubt it will result in anything called npov. I hope there will be a process set as well, to impeach (remove) a published article from public view if this one is said pov by some editors. If not, I think we should not try to publicly pretend we are neutral, but only that we are trying to be. I refer anyone doubting that time is the only way for neutrality to articles such as Nick Berg, Mother Teresa, George Bush articles on en. Anthere 13:26, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I am optimistic about this. I agree it is difficult for an article to be 100% neutral and that every article writter has a specific point of view(although he ought to write neutral articles). But an article may have a lot of general references and Wikipedia references in Wikinews. This is far better than any article in mainstream media. Also, no article writter can have full control over other publishing news, from other people, with different points of view. The reader can compare the information with many different sources here in Wikinews, inside and outside an article.--carlosar Nov 15 14:11:50 2004 (UTC)
 * I like Anthere's ideas for removing articles from view. I do think if we need to able to react as speedily as possible - probably not as fast as the commercial news sites, but still fast. The added safeguard of being able to kill articles that aren't really NPOV (even though these should be caught by the review anyway) would help. Ambi 23:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that removing an article sometimes may be necessary. Also I think that removing an article may be so dangerous than not removing it. We need a good politic here.--carlosar Nov 15 14:11:50 2004 (UTC)

Response to Anthere
Others are allowed to edit original reports, as long as they do not alter information without good reason. It's very similar to asking: Can I change a quotation in a Wikipedia article? An attributed factual claim? Yes, you can, if your change is consistent with the source or if you manage to undeniably prove that the source is inccorect.

The minimum time overall for editing an article is equivalent to the minimum review time (8 hours for normal articles, 4 hours for urgent review articles). There is currently no minimum number of reviewers, but we may add one later.

The tag can be put on an article by anyone, but if the review fails, then the article can either be deleted, improved or fall back to the development state. Most likely, it will stay in the review state for a longer period of time. We'll have to sort out what to do with articles which fail and become out of date, my intuition would be to let people keep editing them, there's no harm in completing the historical record, even if it takes months.

Articles can technically be published by anyone, but in the review guideline I have suggested that for the starting phase, this should be done by sysops. Several models are thinkable here in the long term, including a quorum among randomly chosen active users. I'm not too keen on linking this to sysop status, but I'm also not too keen on having edit wars during publishing right from the start. So I'd like to see some good suggestions here.

The post-publication stage is tricky. Right now, the idea is that any major edits after publication have to be clearly pointed out as UPDATES or EDITS at the bottom of the article. I would like to keep such edits at a minimum - if there is a substantial development, a new story may be justified instead. The default after publication if there is no consensus will be that the edit is not made. Right now, anyone can modify published articles, but we may have to alter this later if it turns out to be a problem.

All articles will be visible to anyone, but articles in development are clearly labeled as such and not linked from the main article namespace.

Yes, in most cases we will keep articles if they are grossly wrong or grossly biased, but we will point out a correction or update alongside the archived version. These can be linked from the bottom of the article. When an article cannot be kept for legal reasons, it can be listed on Deletion requests, and a consensus has to be found there to delete it.

We deal with POV and NPOV in the usual wiki way. During the review process, any POV problems should be sorted out. If a consensus is found even though the article is POV, then obviously the resulting published article will be POV. Certainly there will be instances of that happening. NPOV, on Wikipedia and Wikinews, is an ideal and can only be approximated. Wikipedia articles which you consider NPOV now may very well be POV again tomorrow and vice versa. There is no rule which says that even if you keep articles editable forever, they will naturally converge towards NPOV -- the exact opposite may happen. The review process takes a snapshot of an article at a particular point in time when the people working on it agree that it is good enough to receive the burst of attention that comes with the publication of a news article.

In case of legal problems with archived articles, the community will try to resolve these problems together. Sysops do not hold any special role in this process, they just execute whatever the community decides, through consensus or a large majority vote. I don't understand the question "What do we do if a project is under the control of a small 'approval' team and restrict reviewing?" - this is not the case. The review process is open to anyone.

NPOV has multiple components. One of these components is that we do not engage in clear, obvious propaganda - opinions are attributed. This, I believe, will be easy to achieve within the Wikinews context, and any article which fails to do so is unlikely to pass through the review process. Another component is that articles should strive to be balanced within the topic which they present. This is something that can only be accomplished to the degree that people with the required knowledge participate in writing the article. I agree that in the latter category, time helps, but Wikipedia has the exact same problem as Wikinews here, as new information is constantly added to most controversial articles, requiring balance again, and so on, ad infinitum.

We will try to approximate NPOV as best as we can given the people and the tools which we have, and sometimes we will do well, and other times we will do poorly. In general, however, I believe we can do better than the current dominating media.--Eloquence 03:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your long answer.

''The minimum time overall for editing an article is equivalent to the minimum review time (8 hours for normal articles, 4 hours for urgent review articles). There is currently no minimum number of reviewers, but we may add one later.''
 * I do not remember where these values were decided. 4 hours seem fair for breaking news, as speed in essential. However, I do not think normal articles should follow such a short pattern. This would give possibly 8 hours to write an article and put major information in it. Then possibly 8 hours to review it. I think such a time is just two short for a regular article. I do not think these are classical values for such "normal background" articles. I'll give an example, I have been interviewed several times in the past months. Each time, the journalist who decided to make an article on Wikipedia contacted us between 2 weeks to 4 days before. He usually gathered information during 2-3 days (eventually required in case of 2 or 3 interviews) before writing the article. I think that 8 hours of writing do not even allow one editor to participate one evening in the article with certainty. I think this time is just too short and need to be ... errr... not even changed... but just set at a longer value.

''Articles can technically be published by anyone, but in the review guideline I have suggested that for the starting phase, this should be done by sysops. Several models are thinkable here in the long term, including a quorum among randomly chosen active users. I'm not too keen on linking this to sysop status, but I'm also not too keen on having edit wars during publishing right from the start. So I'd like to see some good suggestions here.''
 * I do not think starting with sysop is a good idea. Sysop are technical help, and the trust we put in them to technically defend and clean the site is of a different type than reviewer value. I would prefer that very quickly, editors allowed to publish are part of an editorially approved team. Or better, that publication only occur when 3 or 4 editors have approved publication rather than one. This can be community inforced as on any wiki. We need to trust people to do as recommandations outlines. We do not need sysops to decide which is correct from which is not correct. This is not their role.

''Yes, in most cases we will keep articles if they are grossly wrong or grossly biased, but we will point out a correction or update alongside the archived version. These can be linked from the bottom of the article. When an article cannot be kept for legal reasons, it can be listed on Deletion requests, and a consensus has to be found there to delete it.''
 * I do not think it is a good idea to keep articles which are grossly wrong. I would support deleting them, or downgrading them to development again. Keeping biaised articles is not fitting with our goal.

''I don't understand the question "What do we do if a project is under the control of a small 'approval' team and restrict reviewing?" - this is not the case. The review process is open to anyone.''
 * Well, if a breaking news article may be published after 8 hours max (4 editing, 4 review), a little team of people editing every day at 8am, reviewing at 12am, and publishing at 16h can in effect succeed to publish every day a biaised article. In case you do not see well what I mean, I will just indicate that activity on the french wikipedia is at peak during french day light hours and is rather sleepy during french night hours. We could very well have a team of people publishing news during our night hours with no possibility for most editors to react before it is too late.
 * If we accept that publication times are so short, we need a serious system to either remove biaised articles or to empeach people. Generally, I think it more positive to act on articles than on people. Anthere 18:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Discussion boards
It'd be nice - if and when this does get the go-ahead, a system of WikiProjects or noticeboards was put into place fairly quickly. I notice at least one of the Australian editors has already arrived, and it'd be nice if we could have a place on Wikinews to coordinate the development of Australian stories. Ambi 23:20, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * hear, hear! :)  --BenM 05:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reply articles to anti-Wikipedia FUD
It would be great if Wikinews editors could write reply articles to FUD generated against Wikipedia ala techcentralstation.com : The Faith-Based Encyclopedia. For example, in this article (written by non-other than a former Editor in Chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica!) the author gets a bit nit-picky about our article on Alexander Hamilton. It would be wonderful to compare the oldest version of EB’s article on Alexandar Hamilton we could find to ours. Ideally we would choose their 3 year old version but let’s look at their 11th edition version (EB should have had an article on Hamilton for over a hundred years by that time).
 * The most glaring thing is that it has ‘’extaclty’’ the same birth date issue (his major criticism)!

Or when the current editor-in-chief of EB said in a recent Guardian article; "People write on things they're interested in, and so many subjects don't get covered; and news events get covered in great detail. The entry on Hurricane Frances is five times the length of that on Chinese art, and the entry on the UK TV soap opera Coronation Street is twice as long as the article on Tony Blair."
 * Which is absurd comparison since EB does not have an article on Hurricane Frances or Coronation Street, and our article on Tony Blair has been longer than the EB version for well over a year.

I could go on and on, but I think you all get my point.

PS: I think EB has started to get beyond their dismissiveness stage concerning Wikipedia and are starting to come to the realization that Wikipedia, not Encarta, is their number 1 threat. We should therefore have a well-developed anti-FUD apparatus to handle the impending onslaught of Wikipedia-bashing from EB and their allies. I think the most logical place for that is Wikinews (those articles may have to be under an ‘Opinion article’ category ; please do not use the often-misunderstood ‘Editorial’ name).

-- Maveric149 23:31, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * In my very first Wikinews proposal, I suggested allowing teams of people from a particular point of view to write op-ed pieces on a particular issue. There would be a solicitation phase during which other people can submit articles from a different point of view. This is still rather controversial and I want to sort out the normal news publishing process first.

 * Certainly, any rebuttal of Wikimedia-related FUD cannot be done from a neutral point of view and as such cannot be done within the current Wikinews framework. I'd suggest publishing a press release or open letter in cases like this for now.--Eloquence
 * Any rebuttal from a Wikimedia project would probably be seen as biased. Besides, the best way to respond to criticism of Wikipedia is simply to keep writing and keep improving. We don't need to respond; quality speaks for itself. Note that our Alexander Hamilton article does now mention the birth date discrepancy :-) Isomorphic 16:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Op-ed piece sounds fine, as long as it is clearly labeled as op-ed. And indeed, it may have a better news value for potential content users (newspapers that would use our contents based on a license).
 * A more neutral approach is to review recent press& blog coverages (including the ABC's column mentioned on WikiEN-l, along with an interview with Jimbo, from a neutral point of view. Tomos 02:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey, everyone, personally i find this bit really funny - Some unspecified quasi-Darwinian process will assure that those writings and editings by contributors of greatest expertise will survive; articles will eventually reach a steady state that corresponds to the highest degree of accuracy. - this Robert McHenry fellow is allegedly a former editor-in-chief of EB but fails to understand the different feedback mechanisms and meta-processes which really are not unique to wikipedia (except in the particular way they are combined and implemented and in their goal); they are common to biological and social systems - shouldn't an editor-in-chief of an encyclopedia have a fairly wide general knowledge of at least elementary notions in most major fields? This is our advantage in not having any hierarchy (ok, jimbo cult aside... ;)

Anyway, EB has already been torn to pieces (NPOV-ally, of course ;) in wikipedia and elsewhere: Enjoy! Boud 04:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica which have been corrected in Wikipedia
 *

Please, let's make this worthwhile
Oh, good. Another !%*$ news site with endless regurgitations of the same stuff the existing media generates so abundantly. Exactly what we don't need Wikinews for is to create the 1001st story saying "Arafat dies."

What I'd propose here is:
 * 1. When any article is first created, its first section should be Justification—in which the article's purpose here would be justified. Appropriate justifications could be judged by the community of writers, and might include:
 * To provide original reporting on an event that the major media hasn't covered (yet)
 * To present a depth of background information not found in typical news stories (stuff like this article on John Kerry's background)
 * To bring together or summarize information in a novel way (stuff like Casualties of the conflict in Iraq since 2003)
 * To improve upon the best of the existing stories available in the major media by including important aspects of context (this might allow for an article such as "Arafat dies" that featured, say, a good neutrally-written biography, but only if there weren't already such stories with comparably good biographies in the major media—which for this example there almost surely would be)
 * 2. Then, when the article undergoes final review, one element that must be evaluated is whether the article satisfies its justification; if not, it shouldn't be published.

I truly hope that someday, when I look at a list of Wikinews headlines, instead of seeing 50 stories that look like Reuters copycats with an occasional really valuable one hidden in the mix, I'll see a collection of items that are actually worthwhile to read and, in some way or other, better than what's available in everyone's newspaper.

Do others agree? Plenty 01:46, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There is much value in providing an open content version even of traditional news. As more and more news sites become "registration only", and as more and more people have the technological power, but not the resources, to provide news from the grassroots, it is of essential importance that there is a free (as in speech) alternative to proprietary newsfeeds. Remember, everything here is open content. If we succeed, any street newspaper can take our material and publish it and add some regional viewpoints, and as a result compete with mainstream media with 1000 times their resources.--Eloquence

 * One benefit I see to providing the open source content is the linking we can do. We can provide that direct link to a wikipedia article on a politican, a movement, an event, etc. That's a GREAT advantage for us, and works even for articles that might be reworks of already reported issues. Lyellin 03:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, you have a different vision for the utility of Wikinews.

How would you feel, then, about implementing my proposal as above, but with one added Justification of last resort called either "None" or "Open-content version of existing media reports," so that people like me would at least have a way of locating the more valuable stories which a community like this might generate in smaller numbers? Plenty 05:39, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think a better approach would be to create a portal for this purpose (similar to "Featured articles" - but we'll also have an FA equivalent, which will include regular topics), and have a nomination process specifically for that purpose. You just have to think of a clever name.--Eloquence 11:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The problem with that approach is that then, if an article's value is to be recognized, someone would have to know about the nomination process, take conscious note of the fact that the article is valuable in a way that most aren't, and take exceptional action to nominate it. Many worthy articles would be missed.

 * Wouldn't it be better to integrate the identification of value into the article creation process? What do you think would be better about the other approach? Plenty 19:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I tend to think that every article created should be valuable, and that the value isn't determined by if it is a re-hash of something already reported, or if it's completely new, but by what the reader wants. To input a "value" or "worth" or "justification" qualification into the creation process... scares me.

 * Me too. We're here to cover news. World news. Tech news. National news. Local news. It'd have to be of immensely low notability for me to want a story gone. Ambi 13:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some news has very time-sensitive value. Others do not. If Wikinews tries to beat Reuters and other wire news agencies in the areas of time-sensitive news reports, I think our short-term prospect is grim. We might succeed in the long-run, if we gather enough people to work on this project. But if our short-term performance is not so good, I am not sure if people will join us.

So I am inclined to say that we should try to create the type of news articles that can be published in a news magazine. If your news story is likely to become useless after several hours, you may want to change the topic, or delay the release until things settle down.

In terms of areas of news, I think it is okay to publish local, international, tech., or any other types of news. Tomos 03:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a known issue in indymedia - most local collectives put the priority on first-hand news which does not come from official and/or corporate sources; each local indymedia is autonomous and decides its own editorial policy: some hide all articles which are just copy/pasted from corporate media, many (like IMC PL) shift official/corporate articles to a section called other media or something similar, so that this does serve as some way of integrating non-first-hand news reports.

IMHO, if wikinews does allow non-first-hand news reports (which i expect is most likely to be the case), then to a large extent it will be much more biased towards government/corporate news sources than indymedia, simply because government/corporate news is distributed on a mass scale and when a single person hears 30 slightly different, but nearly consistent versions of the same story, it's hard for him/her not to believe that the integreated version is close to NPOV, even though the reality is that it's just 30 mutated versions of one public relations firm press release. There's also the Digital Divide aspect, which indymedia, in principle, tries to overcome by putting the priority on local, face-to-face meetings.

However, logic is sensitive to small errors (one wrong inference in a logical argument is enough for the whole argument to be completely wrong). And wikinews including re-integration of numerous mutations of official govt/corporate news reports is still going to be much more sensitive to minorities coming up with alternative viewpoints on what happened, where, when than any govt/corporate news source. In fact, if 30 people each look at a news article and say to themselves, hey, sure, that's more or less correct they probably won't edit it much - and then when/if someone comes up and adds something obviously different, well, there is some danger of people saying it's POV because they don't want to believe it, but that person's contribution will probably have more effect than simply the democratic weight of the author - this is the consensus process instead of democracy.

So IMHO there's not much point in being worried about including re-integration of govt/corporate press releases in wikinews; wikinews is not trying to reproduce indymedia, the two are complementary, with wikinews focussing on the wiki, virtual side, while indymedia focuses on the local, physical non-virtual side trying to encourage people to post first-hand reports of news events. (wikinews and indymedia are closer to one another in goals and techniques than wikipedia and indymedia, but that's no problem IMHO.) Boud 03:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Renaming the project: WikiNOVA
I have been hoping and searching for something like Wikinews for a long time. Would it be possible to change the name to something less English and more international like WikiNova? -- rotoz 15:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Why? While I think there will definitly be a few different languages used here, look at the site now. It's pretty much all in English. And the language itself is a fairly common choice as a second language, so more people know it. I think the name is good and should stay, but just out of curiousity what does NOVA stand for?--Arca 03:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It does not bother me that the English version of this project is called Wikinews but when we start having other language domains this will become a problem I think. I'm not sure that fr.wikinews or ja.wikinews could become a respectable news source in those language communities with those names. --Bjarki 15:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree with changing the name to WikiNOVA. We already got a name, logo and web address. WikiNOVA doesn't sound like a website about current events and somepeople may confuse it with NOVA on PBS.- B-101 00:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine & etc

 * 1) I added Ukraine to the main page. Sorry for taking down Latest News, I did it only after I realized that the stories there are 5 days old.
 * 2) I feel there is a lot of things to discuss before we try making official wikinews
 * 3) Article names - should they really include all the title? Suppose we've written an article with 54 dead but then some injured people die again and that's 60 - should we rename the article?
 * They died again? That's rather unfortunate! ;-) Lankiveil 02:26, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) The main point is from where we are going to take news. If from BBC, CNN etc, then we can't be better then them. If we'are starting something new then we shouldn't mimic the traditional format. 203.162.3.146 08:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ukraine and US
Warning: Sarcasm follows

Well, of course with so many important events as we have no time to write about unsignificant countries, like United States and Ukraine. Oh, some of you might know that they recently had elections and perhaps one or two have heard that there were some problems - don't remember what... Oh, nothing major, just people are unsure who won the elections. But don't worry, if it comes to fight in Ukraine, or if the country is broken into two part - who even cares?
 * 19 Burmese political prisoners released; more to come
 * Beheaded bodies found as fighting continues in Mosul
 * Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (MST) invades in Bahia

Likewise, we shouldn't bother ourselves with the possible irregularities in the 2004 US Presidential Election. First, if we write about it, this could be considered an Americocentrism. Second, the candidates are so similar, it doesn't matter who won. Third, even if electronic machines do falsify the vote, which is yet unproven, who cares? Nobody wants to know more about it.

So I'm happy Wikinews concentrates on right things: Chinese plane, Sudanese peace, Brasilian movements. Clearly, we should report about every accident that involved death of a single person. In the future, we will be reporting not only all plane crashes, but also all auto, moto and velo accidents.

Ilya 06:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (PS. According to the rule of being bold, I'll try to write something about these topics and I'll put them on the Main page under the new section Ongoing events if no objections will be brought).

 * Please do. Also please notice that this site is brand new, and we are writing articles as we can, as we make policy as well. Holes will happen. I do not believe there have EVER been any discussions along the lines you suggust on either of these topics- they simply haven't been written about, and other newsworthy things have. Unfortunetly, that will happen until we can get a large writer base. Lyellin 07:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * What?! You mean the small handful of regular part-time editors this site currently has cannot cover every single world event that is covered by thousands of paid journalists worldwide? Surely we must give up our means of employment and social lives and work harder! Wikinews must be perfect even before the semantics are worked out and it officially launches! (Smart#&$edness begets smart#&$edness.) Garrett Albright 09:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * This is inevitable, and it is the case for Wikipedia as well. However, if we grow to any reasonable size, it is likely that we have more articles than we can showcase on the Wikinews Main Page anyway. Hence we can use the instrument of article visibility to make sure that readers will be given as unbiased an outlook as possible..--carlosar

 * "Wikinews concentrates on". Hm? Who is this wikinews of whom you speak? People write what they can. I would love to write more about the important Ukrainian election. But do I live in Ukraine? No. So, what realiable sources do I have? One: The Economist, and I think they will be unhappy if I copy their articles. ;) This probably goes for most people here too. In short: The lack of cover will fix itself when more people get involved. If everybody contributes the best they can, it will work out fine. --Regebro 01:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This is an excellent test for the Digital Divide issue, in the more practical side of the digital divide among people who have some internet access, but many do not speak English, many do not touch type, etc. etc.: So let's just look at the populations:
 * Burma - 43 million
 * Iraq - 25 million
 * Brazil - 184 million
 * USA - 293 million
 * Ukraine - 48 million
 * Certainly the USA has a bigger population than any country except for India and China; so falsified elections there are certainly important. But the Ukraine is much less populous than Brazil and only slightly more populous than Burma. The MST Movement is certainly just as important as the orange revolution in Ukraine. You're right that stories on the US should not be excluded, but mocking the importance of other parts of the world is not a very concrete step towards correcting the Digital Divide If we want to go strictly by population - i.e. if we want to be really neutral, then we should have something like 6-7 news stories from China and India for every USA news story. Boud 13:43, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Most of these issues will be resolved with scale and diversity of participants. I think we dont need to worry about it. Besides, I think that what you criticizes (the coverage of regional stories) is a strong point to Wikinews. The mainstream media does not do that(sometimes they cant because they cant mantain a reporter at every single country) but we can do. Also, I think people will cover the most important regional news. The coverage of regional news is an important aspect of Wikinews and it is a virtue. -- Carlosar 02:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This site has been SLASHDOTTED!
Currently you are item #3 on /.(slashdot). Thats how I found it. By linking from Slashdot.

That is a news item I would suppose but since I am unsure of the 'footing' I will just post it here.

Being slashdotted it rather more than mundane. It means a huge number of visitors(usually) will visit the site. It usually is enough to easily clog many servers(haven't noticed or else you have very good pipes to the backbone.

 * Wikipedia gets a lot more traffic than Slashdot, believe it or not. Wikinews is hosted on the same servers. Dori 07:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Just imagine if everybody would support this project. (note: this will give admins a dilemma: a lot of knowledge or burned out server, hi hi ;-P).

Protect the main page
Do you think the main page on Wikinews could be permanently protected, just like on Wikipedia? Denelson83 08:22, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I did this tonight, in an attempt to protect it from vandalism. Lyellin 04:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

crosswords
Right, so if wikinews is a newspaper, then do we want a crosswords page? I love making crosswords! Would my crossword page get far? Wonderfool (Wikipedia)

 * I don't think that Wikinews is a newspaper. It's a news source — but nothing in being a news source requires (or implies) that it must have crossword puzzles. Though of course neither does it preclude them.
 * I think we could make crosswords a feature of the site, but for that, try making them within your pages in the User namespace first, and post about them and then we can discuss how and if they will fit into the big picture of things here. -- IlyaHaykinson 03:09, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * After I fill in the answers with a marker or crayon (pencil doesn't write on glass very well), do you have any suggestions on cleaning off my computer screen so I can read other Wikinews content? Seriously, I think we need to keep in mind that people will be accessing WN on their PCs and the analogy to newspapers may not be appropriate in this instance. :-) Davodd | Talk 11:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm Thinking about you all and praying for you.
--Chuck Harris 21:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)May God bless you with whatever you need to help your children. I've done what I can here in South Carolina. But maybe I ought To come help. I feel so helpless in the face of your tremendous suffering. Please God. Help my fellow human beings in their struggle and bring them comfort.

So much is lost. So much can yet be salvaged. There is a child breathing somewhere. A woman. A man. What can be done to immediately distribute on-hand resources to outlying areas unreachable by land due to road wash outs? Why aren't the global powers prioritizing airlifting and distributing critical supplies by sea as a pressing priority? Structuring a distribution network is fundamental management.

title: Wikinews:Water cooler/Archive1


text:
Template:Breaking

ca:Plantilla:Esdeveniments en curs es:Plantilla:Última hora fa:الگو:خبرفوری fr:Modèle:En cours it:Template:Diretta ja:テンプレート:現在進行中 pl:Szablon:Aktualne pt:Predefinição:Última hora zh:Template:Breaking

title: Template:Breaking


text:
Federally-funded abstinence programs fraught with problems: Report

According to a report issued by U.S. House of Representatives Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), the majority of abstinence-only sexual education programs in schools contain incorrect or misleading information.

The report found that over 80% of the curricula used by the recipients of the grants contained incorrect information, including the claim that condoms did not prevent the spread of STDs and that abortions have a high chance of causing sterility.

These programs are funded by the federal government under President George W. Bush's faith-based initiative. According to the report, these abstinence programs—promoted by the administration of President Bush—are receiving increasing amounts of funding: nearly $170 million will be spent in 2005, which is more than double the spending on these programs in 2001.

Under the faith-based initiative programs, the United States government allocates funds to religious and other community organizations that agree to carry out abstinence education programs which do not include coverage of any other methods of birth control or sexually transmitted disease prevention, as well as other criteria.

The timing of the report is significant in that it comes on the heels of research from Columbia University that found that nearly 9 of 10 teenagers who had pledged abstinence from pre-marital sex had broken their vows in the first six years since the pledges.

The Waxman Report and the Columbia University study describe some abstinence programs as factually wrong and/or ineffective. In a rebuttal, Dr. Alma L. Golden, a deputy assistant secretary in the Health and Human Services Department, said in a statement that Mr. Waxman's report "misses the boat" and that it took information out of context "for purely political reasons."


text:
Dem. Republic of Congo prepares to confront Rwanda

December 3, 2004

The Democratic Republic of the Congo may be preparing to have its troops face those of Rwanda, which have allegedly been sighted by United Nations personnel on the Congo side of the border.

The United Nations is attempting to mediate the conflict but both sides of the conflict appear to be pursuing independent policies, with Congo's president accusing Rwanda of being predatory, and Rwandan president refusing to back down from the threat of pursuing Rwandan rebels across Congo's territory.


text:
Ukraine parliament sacks government

The Ukrainian passed a vote of no-confidence in the government of Prime Minister  bolstering the efforts of opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko. In addition, the parliament also voted to establish an interim government during the continuing election crisis.

The vote came just before international mediators were to commence efforts to resolve the controversial election.

title: Ukraine parliament sacks government


text: User talk:81.229.227.222

title: User talk:81.229.227.222


text:
Talk:Federally-funded abstinence programs fraught with problems: Report

I think this should be more than a summary of Rep. Waxman's findings and should include counter arguments. 119

I think this ought to be called "Report: abstinence programs fraught with problems", the current title sounds more like an opinion piece than a news story. --Admbws 01:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carlosar 05:27, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) - I think you should making the following changes: According to a report issued by U.S. House of Representatives Democrat Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA)
 * According to a report issued by U.S. House of Representatives Congressman Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) ->
 * These programs are funded by the federal government under President George W. Bush's -> These programs are funded by the federal government under Republican President George W. Bush's
 * Federally-funded abstinence programs fraught with problems: Report -> Federally-funded abstinence programs fraught with problems: Democrat Report

I think you should be carefull with the possible main claim of the article: Don't you think this is an absurd? (A man who drives your car every day has less possibilities in getting an accident than another man who don't drive or occasionally drive a car). This is just an observation. If you make the changes I have proposed above, I will be satisfied. -- Carlosar 05:50, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * sexy abstinence incentive is inefficient for prevent the spread of STDs.
 * A group of teenagers who practises sexy constantly has less possibilities in getting STDs than another group of teenagers who dont practises or occasionally practises sexy.

What the heck are you talking about? Sexy what? I don't see anywhere in the article that claims that "sexy abstinence is ineffective" or even the reverse. I also don't see any other "loose logic" type claims.

If these programs are federally funded the title is accurate and that does not indicate an OpEd piece. Finally, (D-CA) means Democrat from California. (R-CA) would indicate a Republican from California and anyone who does not know that G.W. Bush is a Republican has been living under a rock. Indicating a Senator's party affiliation is redundant when (R or D) is included in that person's title.
 * Ok. Also I praise your opinions but I would like to ask you to sign them. -- Carlosar

Carlosar-- Some notes:
 * I think that the under review template is not being used anymore.
 * This article is here for a long time, maybe it is time to publish it.

I think that this article can be published as it is unless someone else protest. -- Carlosar

Reporting dead link www.whitehouse.gov

 * http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/grants-catalog-abstinence.html has gone offline. The content in now available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/government/fbci/grants-catalog-abstinence.html.

MerlLinkBot (talk) 14:11, 21. May 2009


text:
User:Duffman~enwikinews

 Duffman is here

title: User:Duffman~enwikinews


text:
Wikinews:Etiquette

Wikinews contributors come from many countries and cultures. We have different views, perspectives, and backgrounds, sometimes varying widely. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building a news team.

This page offers some principles of "Wikiquette" — guidelines on how to work with others on Wikinews. You can read about more basic conventions at the policies and guidelines page.

Principles of Wikinews etiquette

 * Never assume. Wikinews is based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. But when something looks odd, do not assume good faith or bad faith. Do not assume anything. There is no reason to be overly critical, and no reason to leave out suspicions. This also applies to reporting on news. Be objective.
 * Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
 * Amend, edit, discuss.
 * Be polite.
 * People can't see you or know for sure your mood. Irony isn't always obvious, and blunt, raw text can easily appear rude. Be careful of the words you choose — what you intended might not be what others think.
 * Work toward agreement.
 * Don't ignore questions.
 * If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
 * Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
 * Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
 * Be prepared to apologize.
 * In animated discussions, we often say things we later wish we hadn't. Say so.
 * Forgive and forget.
 * Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.
 * Give praise when due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages.
 * Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated.
 * Help mediate disagreements between others.
 * If polite discussion fails, take a break if you're arguing or recommend a break if you're mediating.
 * Come back after a week or two. If no one is mediating, and you think mediation is needed, enlist someone.
 * Walk away or find another Wikinews article to distract yourself — lend your much-needed services at pages needing attention.
 * Remember what Wikinews is not.
 * Be civil.

How to avoid abuse of talk pages
Most people take pride in their work and in their point of view. Egos can easily get hurt in editing, but talk pages are not a place for striking back. They're a good place to comfort or undo damage to egos, but most of all they're for forging agreements that are best for the articles they're attached to.

Here are a few things to bear in mind

 * Wikinews articles are supposed to fairly report all views (more at NPOV). The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as the comments namespace, Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
 * If someone disagrees with you, this does not necessarily mean that (1) the person hates you, (2) the person thinks you're stupid, (3) the person is stupid, (4) the person is evil, etc. When people post opinions without practical implications for the article, it's best to just leave them be.
 * Wikinews invites you to be bold. Before initiating discussion, ask yourself: Is this really necessary to discuss? Could I provide a summary with my edit and wait for others to quibble if they like?
 * You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.

A few more tips on polite discussion

 * Always make clear what point you are addressing, especially in replies.
 * Quoting a post is O.K., but stating how you interpreted it is better. Before proceeding to say that someone is wrong, concede you might have misinterpreted him or her.
 * Don't label or personally attack people or their edits.
 * Terms like "racist," "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively.

Other words of advice

 * Be open and warmly welcoming, not insular.
 * Be focused single-mindedly on writing news articles, not on Usenet-style debate.
 * Recognize and praise the best work, work that is detailed, factual, well-informed, and well-referenced.
 * Work to understand what neutrality requires and why it is so essential to and good for this project.
 * Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikinews with respect and good will.
 * Attract and honor good people who know a lot and can write about it well.
 * Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.
 * Make others feel welcome (even longtime participants; even those you dislike).
 * Create and continue a friendly environment.
 * Turn the other cheek (which includes walking away from potential edit wars).
 * Give praise, especially to those you don't know (most people like to know they are wanted and appreciated).
 * Forgive.

title: Wikinews:Etiquette


text:
User:JustPippa

Hello, I'm JustPhil. I logged in on 12/03/04. I am also a user of Wikipedia, Wikiquote, and Memory-Alpha (a Star Trek wiki). I hope to be an asset to this project.

title: User:JustPippa


text:
User:Rhobite

I do most of my editing on en: w:User:Rhobite.

I'm usually in #wikinews and #wikipedia as well.

title: User:Rhobite


text:
ETA bombs five gas stations in Madrid

The Basque separatist group ETA was blamed for five explosions at gas stations in the Spanish capital of Madrid on Friday. The explosions claimed no casualties, but two police officers were lightly wounded.

An anonymous caller contacted the Basque newspaper Gara at 5.30pm local time, describing the location of the devices and naming ETA as responsible for the attacks. The bombings caused city-wide traffic jams, as police and rescue forces raced to secure the targets. The attacks ended a relatively peaceful phase of several months in the conflict between the Spanish central government and Basque extremists.

While leaders of ETA's political arm Batasuna have recently hinted at the possibility of a ceasefire, the assault makes any form of dialogue with ETA unlikely in the near future. ETA is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union.

title: ETA bombs five gas stations in Madrid


text:
Talk:President of Brazil meets President of Russia

There is a small paragraph in this article written in Portuguese, that says something like:

The President of Lula of Brazil, boozer despot, drank one more this afternoon and said that he will get plastered until he falls off the steps of the Planalto.
 * It has been fixed.Carlosar 12:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Regebro~enwikinews

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Regebro

Fun Trivia: I got quoted in New York Times article on Wikinews.

The document stages are now removed, so the main reason for the following text is gone. But the text in itself are still interesting, I think, so it stays.

=Embrace the Wiki=

I notice that many people in the discussions tend to forget that this is a Wiki. As such, it differs enormously from other news channels. Some of the major differences are:
 * Articles are constantly changeable. This is true for all on-line media of course, but still most news sources do not use that feature. That's because many of the are tied to paper-news. They then need to write one article and publish it. As soon as it hits the paper, it's there. It can't be changed. On-line news isn't like that, here articles are changeable for ever. The effects of this are numerouos:
 * You can write an article and constantly updated and amend and correct it. Many of the discussions and suggestions for improvements forget this. You don't have to, as a news paper has to, write a new article to cover new developments. Instead, you add it to the already existing article.
 * It also means that an approving process immediately gets defeated. More on this in the "We don't need document stages" section.
 * Articles have no clearcut date. They can cover events that stretch over years, they can still be updated and amended a long time after they were written, and even be written before the event.

 * Articles are changeable by anyone. This is the whole idea with wikimedia. It has huge effects:
 * The major benefit is that anybody can go in and add knowledge, correct mistakes, reword the article to better english and so on. This is the whole point of having a wiki of course.
 * But that in turn means that there is no clear authorship.
 * It also means that anyone can approve articles and that anyone can disprove articles.

We don't need document stages
The Wiki review process has been working quite nice on the other Wikimedia sites, I see no reason why we should throw out that experience with Wikinews. Wikinews should start out with the same review process as all other wikimedia sites: People changing things that are wrong, and handling the conflicts of opinion when they happen.

Nothing else is needed. In fact, anything else may be directly damaging. The current review process is an example of that. It is centered around the idea that articles should be approved. But:

A wiki defeats any approval process (and vice versa)
Since anybody can approve and article, and anybody can write in the comments "looks fine to me" an "reviewed stamp" means nothing. It is not a guarantee of anything. Having a reviewed stamp therefore in most cases are a false certificate that makes claims of authority and reliability that is not there. Approval stamps require authority and accountability. An open wiki has neither.

Also remember that articles can be changed at any time. If the article was approved the 5th, and changed the 8th, those changes are not reviewed but it will still have the approved stamp! An approval process, which the current review process is, must lock the article after it gets approved, or the whole approvement process is pointless. But what happens if we lock the articles? well, then it's not freely editable anymore, and all the benefits of a wiki gets thrown out the door! That doesn't seem very constructive...

The truth is hard to find, but lies are easy to spot
The current review process is based on people vouching for the accuracy and truthfulness of the article. That is based on a misunderstanding of how collective knowledge works. Basically, any review process are specialized versions of the biggest review process of them all: the scientific process. It's based on a couple of principles and one of them are the principle of falsifyability and the idea that you start with making theories and then proving them wrong. Basically, it is usually much easier to prove something wrong than prove something right.

As a parallell to that, it's much easier to spot errors in an article than it is to spot the truth. The result of that is that the review process should not try to spot accuracy or spot truth, it should try to spot the errors. This is what the wikipedia review process does, and it has worked beautifully. The review process for wikinews should be based on wikipedias and take the knowledge amd experience into account. The current one does not, and it's made for paper media, not a wiki.

Wikinews can not have editorials
Good editorials are thought provoking, and almost always biased and opinionating. But wikis are about collective authoring. And the point of collective authoring is to reach a collective concensus, to tap the collective knowledge. So, you can not opinionate or do analyzing in a wiki unless everybody have the same basic viewpoint, which of course will never happen.

Can you claim your right to your editorial? No, there is no article ownership. What happens if you write a good, thougt provoking, opinionating editorial? Somebody that do not agree will change it, and it gets the arguments and conclusion changed, and it will stop being good and thought provoking, although most likely it will still be opinionating. About something else. You can change it back of course, but that will only result in an editwar. Or, you can just remove opinions from the article to stop the editwar, but then it stops being an editorial.

This can only be prevented by not allowing editing of editorials. Again, that means throwing out all the benefits of a wiki. In addition it means we need to approve the authors of editorials as being good and thought provoking. And that means we need to decide what is thought provoking and what is a just a heap of stupid crap. This mostly depends on your standpoint on different issues. So, to have good editorials, Wikinews need a political standpoint! Well, personally, I'm all for declaring that Wikinews should promote globalisation, liberal democracy and capitalism, but I don't see how that is gonna be accepted generally. ;)

Summary
Notice how both the idea of editorials and the idea of an approval-centered review process ends up with the same thing: Locking articles for editing, assigning article ownership and implementing a publishing workflow. Of course, all of these things are possible, but what do we have then? Only a news site, like any other. We have authors that write articles that get approved by editors that publish the articles who then stay static for eternity. It is no longer Wikinews, it is Whatevernews, and none of the benefits of an open wiki are no longer possible.

This is not a daily paper. This is not a weekly magazine. This is not a TV channel. It's wiki, and as such Wikinews can revolutionize news reporting in the same way as wikipedia revolutionized encyclopedias. Don't fight it, work with it and embrace the wiki.

title: User:Regebro~enwikinews


text:
User talk:195.137.30.166

You've repeatedly vandalized the main page. Please stop right now, or you'll be blocked. Rhobite 02:20, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:195.137.30.166


text:
User:Goplat/monobook.css

 * 1) p-logo a { background-image: url(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikinews/en/b/bc/Wiki.png) !important; }

title: User:Goplat/monobook.css


text:
User:Bjarki~enwikinews

w:User:Biekko

title: User:Bjarki~enwikinews


text:
User:J'raxis~enwikinews

J’raxis 270145 spends most of his time over at Wikipedia, but also contributes to this wiki from time to time.

title: User:J'raxis~enwikinews


text: Template:Delete

title: Template:Delete


text:
User talk:Ebradsha~enwikinews

Incognito_Networks_Introduces_Radical_Hosting_Solutions is not news but a press release, or in other words an advertisement. It is not something we carry on Wikinews. 119 02:34, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

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

title: User talk:Ebradsha~enwikinews


text:
User:RadicalBender~enwikinews

Go here.

title: User:RadicalBender~enwikinews


text:
User:Babbage

Hi!

title: User:Babbage


text:
Talk:ETA bombs five gas stations in Madrid

I consider a serious mistake that the word terrorist may not be used to refer to ETA. By their fruits, you shall know them: They have killed hundreds of people and they are *not* a political party. It is really difficult to think that their goal is something different than what they have done in the last years. If you decide not to use the word terrorist you are speaking euphemistically. Wikipedia is not going to be less "neutral" by calling things by their proper name. Please reconsider. -- Somebody from Spain.

In my opinion the adjective 'seperatist' does not imply that ETA is not a terrorist organization. The fact that they detonate bombs in major cities clearly shows that they are ready to kill innocents to promote their goals. I chose 'seperarist' because it alludes to the fact that ETA's goal is the creation of an independant Basque state. Terrorist/terrorism etc are used so frequently these days that I thought seperatist would provide a more accurate description - I did not mean to imply that ETA is somehow 'better' than any other group that uses violence to promote its goals.

That said I think we are seeing a fundamental problem in the way Wikinews works here. Peer review is absolutely essential of course, but a news site cannot devote the same amount of time to review that a online dictionary can. You state that "Wikipedia is not going to be less "neutral" by calling things by their proper name" - only that this isn't Wikipedia and as far as I understand it, publishing news items quickly is just as important as reporting facts as objectively as possible. Whether its 'terrorist' or 'seperatist' matters less than whether its published in a timely fashion or not (and I'm not just saying that in regards to this article, but to Wikinews in general). Just my 0.05€. -- Coffee

I've changed terrorist to separatist and added a note about ETA being considered a terrorist organization. I've also removed some POV stuff at the end. The article looks OK to me now.--Eloquence 02:40, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The use(or not) of the word terrorist is controversial. Anyway I think the article is ok now.--- Carlosar 02:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
User:Arca~enwikinews

My (real as in real-life) name is Bill Peters. I'm a student in High School in just outside of DC; so political news is local news to me. I write for my school paper but the monthly schedual cramps my ability to write about the news of the day, so that's why I'm here.

title: User:Arca~enwikinews


text:
Delta 4 Heavy rocket poised for maiden launch

December 13, 2004

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida - The first new heavy lift space vehicle in a generation is cleared to launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. The Boeing Delta IV Heavy has missed launch opportunities three days in a row (starting Friday, December 12) due to minor technical difficulties. It is now scheduled to launch Dec. 20 or 21 from pad SLC-37B.

The Delta 4 was developed as part of the U.S Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program to reduce costs and improve reliability. The basic design is a two stage, cryogenic LOx/LH2 rocket. Strap-on boosters may be added to increase lift capacity.

Two major obstacles have plagued the project in recent years; a bidding scandal which cost Boeing a large portion of the military satellite launch business for which it was competing, and a downturn in commercial satellite launches in 2001.

The Heavy variant of the Delta 4 rocket can place 13,100 kg (28,950 Lb) into geostationary transfer orbit, greater than any other current rocket. Two additional first stage cores are used as strap-on boosters for this configuration. Their rated thrust is 2,900,000 N (656,000 lb) each.

Delta 4's main engine, the RS68, is the most powerful hydrogen/liquid oxygen engine in the world, approximately three times as powerful as the Ariane 5 Vulcain HM60. Its design sacrifices efficiency for increased reliability and lower cost: rated specific impulse is 365s at sea level and 410s in a vacuum. The second stage engine, Pratt and Whitney's RL-10B-2, has a specific impulse of 462s.

The primary market for this launcher will be classified spy satellites for the US intelligence community. Most of these satellites were previously launched on the Titan 4, which has since been retired. The Delta 4 Heavy's published launch cost is $170 million, compared to the Titan 4's $400 million (1999 dollars).

Delta 4 Heavy's maiden launch is a demonstration and will carry a dummy load and two nano-satellites. The main payload, dubbed DemoSat is a 6020 kg (13271 lb) mass designed to simulate the dynamic and initial properties of a real satellite. Its design consists of large brass rods, intended to fully burn up on reentry.

The two nano-satellites are part of the US Department of Defense Nanosat-2 Program, and built by students from New Mexico State University, Arizona State University, and the University of Colorado at Boulder.


text:
Category:November 16, 2004

it:Categoria:16 novembre 2004

title: Category:November 16, 2004


text:
User talk:Dvnkfjdsnvkjd

Please stop your vandalism. Thanks.

title: User talk:Dvnkfjdsnvkjd


text:
Wikinews:Workspace/Archive

4 December 2004

 * Review: Chinese film won Golden Horse Award
 * Develop: Humans may have contributed to 2003 European heatwave
 * Develop: Tommy Thompson steps down as Secretary of Health and Human Services
 * Develop: 15 killed in Baghdad green-zone
 * Review: Federally-funded abstinence programs fraught with problems
 * Review: Aljazeera says United States have used napalm in Fallujah
 * Develop: Rumsfeld to Stay on as Defense Secretary

3 December 2004

 * Duplicates: ETA detonates explosives in Madrid and ETA bombs five gas stations in Madrid
 * Develop: Ukraine parliament sacks government
 * Review: Ukraine Supreme Court orders new election
 * Develop: Ukraine Supreme Court orders new election
 * NPOV: Ukraine and Western bias
 * Review: ETA detonates explosives in Madrid

2 December 2004

 * Review: Federally-funded abstinence programs fraught with problems
 * Develop: Ukraine and Western bias
 * Develop: Kerik nominated as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security

1 December 2004

 * Develop: ITMS Canada launched
 * Help: US Department of Defense releases report critical of war on terror
 * Develop: US Department of Defense releases report critical of war on terror

30 November 2004

 * Develop: United States uses napalm in Fallujah
 * Develop: US Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge resigns
 * Review: US president Bush visits Canada
 * Develop: US president Bush visits Canada
 * Develop: China and South East Asian nations to create the world's largest free trade area
 * Develop: Outgoing US Congress Takes Parting Jabs at Wildlife Protection
 * Develop: Hopes rise for breakthrough in Northern Ireland Peace Process
 * Develop: Valech Report released
 * Develop: Red Cross discovers abuse in Guantánamo

29 November 2004

 * Develop: Ukrainian opposition leader calls for police and army to join revolution
 * Develop: American teenage girl charged with murder of her own mother
 * Urgent review: Ruling party ahead in Romanian elections
 * Develop: Lycos launches screensaver to increase spammers' bills

28 November 2004

 * Develop: Researchers discover high temperature enables more efficient hydrogen generation
 * Develop: USL v. BSDi settlement agreement unsealed

27 November 2004

 * Develop: Record computer outage at UK government department

26 November 2004

 * Develop: Australia in a good position after first day of Adelaide test match

25 November 2004

 * Develop: Ukraine election results delayed by court

24 November 2004

 * Develop: Indonesian police arrest four suspects wanted over Australian Embassy bombing

22 November 2004

 * Develop: Dan Rather resigns as anchor, to stay on as correspondent
 * Develop: 16,000 protest School of the Americas
 * Develop: President of Brazil meets President of Russia

21 November 2004

 * Develop: US Exchange rate a concern for Europeans
 * Develop: Bulk of Iraqi debt to Paris Club to be forgiven
 * Develop: Chinese commuter plane crashes; 54 dead

19 November 2004

 * Develop: Palestinian elections could be vital to Middle East peace process

18 November 2004

 * Review: World's Most-Spammed Man
 * Review: Governments using Linux risk violating law, says Microsoft's CEO

17 November 2004

 * Develop: Polish government refuses support to EU software patents directive

15 November 2004

 * Dev: Iran Agrees to Suspend Uranium Conversion
 * Dev: Hearing begins over David Hookes death

11 November 2004

 * Dev: Arafat dies

title: Wikinews:Workspace/Archive


text:
User:Whosyourjudas~enwikinews

Please see my user page at w:User:Whosyourjudas. Thanks!

title: User:Whosyourjudas~enwikinews


text: User:Yath~enwikinews

title: User:Yath~enwikinews


text:
User:Vague Rant~enwikinews

I'm more commonly found at the English Wikipedia. For my user page, see w:User:Vague Rant.

title: User:Vague Rant~enwikinews


text:
User:Denelson83/monobook.css

a { text-decoration: none; color: #009900; background: none; }

/* this can be used in the content area to switch off special external link styling */ background: none; padding: 0; }
 * 1) bodyContent a.external { color: #0000cc; }
 * 1) bodyContent .plainlinks a {

color: #0066cc; background: none; padding: 0; }
 * 1) bodyContent a.extiw,
 * 2) bodyContent a.extiw:active {

a:visited { color: #006600; } a:active { color: 00ff00; text-decoration: none; } a:hover { color: 00cc00; text-decoration: none; } a.stub { color: #cc9900; } a.new { color: #cc0000; } a.new:visited { color: #990000; }

title: User:Denelson83/monobook.css


text:
User:Merriam~enwikinews/how to contribute to Wikinews

the concept
"Wikinews aims to be to news media what Wikipedia is to encyclopedias," according to User:Eloquence. See Wikinews and the Growing Wikimedia Empire. If you don't know what Wikipedia is, find out before going any further.

an experiment
That's all it is. Take no notice of that "Beta" logo. What I see here now, on 2004-12-04, is a long way from being ready for visitors who are interested in reading news.

identity and time stamps
Get an account and make sure you're logged in when you edit. Where you see comments marked with names and dates, do the same with your comments. The code " ~ " expands to your name and the date of your edit. You can see this in the preview of your edit.

editing
Always edit your contributions. Show preview repeatedly before you save the page. Make sure you've said exactly what you meant to say. Check spelling, punctuation, grammar, style, and links. Do this for discussion as well as articles. You're expecting a lot of people to read what you write. If you make it difficult for them, they won't bother.

repeating the news
Yes, that's what we're doing here. I don't think it's a complete waste of time, and it's in line with, but I hope it will progress to something more substantial.

your subject, your language
Write about what you know, in your own language.

Look at the history of the first article. It's had a lot of edits and it's still rough. That's to be expected when no one is available who knows both the subject and the language. Specifically, it has not been edited by native English speakers who also understand Portuguese. Portuguese is part of the subject because it is the language of the sources. Native English speakers who know about Brazilian politics and government would of course be useful here too.

In the context of, early articles like this are worthwhile, but it's clear now that we should choose stories that we can do well from the start. If you think a story should be covered on Wikinews, start it by filling in some references. Someone else may be able to write the article.

talking about it and doing it
Try not to go on about what could and should be done. Demonstrate it in your user namespace (subpages).

There's a lot of noise and confusion going on at Columns and Wikinews talk:Columns, and now there's Opinion articles poll. If you think opinion pieces are a good idea, write one. If you want to get into an argument, start by having something to argue about.

research and reference

 * Don't write from memory when the facts are available.
 * Don't duplicate information when you can link.
 * Don't suggest policy without researching precedent.
 * Show your references.

This applies to discussion as well as articles. A lot of time is wasted in arguing without research and reference:

 * "U.S." or "US"? -- discussion without researching precedent
 * style guide discussion of abbreviation -- no reference to w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style
 * Water cooler and Style guide -- confusion over.

precedent in policy and guidelines
A lot of effort has gone into establishing policy and guidelines at Wikipedia. Wikinews is a different site with different goals, but it's not necessary to start that effort again from scratch. If you're thinking about policy at Wikinews, save time by looking it up at Wikipedia. If you're writing about policy, justify your position with references. Here are some relevant pages:

 * w:Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
 * w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style
 * w:Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) -- which suggests using double hyphens and waiting for the software to catch up
 * w:Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes
 * w:Wikipedia:Naming conventions

the IRC channel
Talk pages can be very inefficient. Use #wikinews for time-sensitive talk.

 * Use the same name on the channel as on the wiki, or something close if the name is taken.
 * Understand IRC before you use it, and observe etiquette. Don't flood or go off topic.
 * Give precise Uniform Resource Locators with fragment identifiers when you're talking about web pages.

dateline and byline
The usual meaning of dateline refers to the report, not the event reported. On a Wikinews article a dateline is appropriate if you were there at that time, writing the bulk of the article. It will become inappropriate if the article changes substantially. If you are writing an article based on a report by someone else, refer to the dateline but don't apply it to your article. Don't write a time and place at the beginning of your article in a form that looks like a dateline unless it is a dateline. Associate times and places with events unambiguously -- for example, in a complete sentence or a table.

If your article has a byline, it simply names you as the author. On Wikinews a byline might be appropriate on an opinion piece.

See also Wikinews talk:Style guide and Talk:Record computer outage at UK government department.

de:Benutzer:Mathias Schindler/Zu Wikinews beitragen


text:
User:Microbe

G'day - I am Microbe.

My home is at hahaha.com.au

title: User:Microbe