text:
Comments:Teen hacker admits to attack on scientology.org

Anonymous is doing the right thing now
I am glad that Anonymous has shifted tactics of Project Chanology away from illegal methods and instead now focuses on peaceful protesting around the world and other peaceful non-violent means of getting their message across. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Are Freedom Fighters
I recently spoke to a intelligence professor at a local university in the San Francisco Bay Area, who wants to be unnamed because of possible harassment from the cult, about the DDoS attacks against Scientology and their illegality. The professor laughed at the issue at hand where a young teenager in New Jersey is being charged for maximum penalties. DDoS wasn't a big deal at all. Nothing was defaced, nothing was destroyed, and the site was restored eventually. He laughed harder when I asked about the "cyber terrorist" label which Scientology likes to throw around. He stated that "Unless someone attacks a government website to steal information or cause harm to the government or citizens, there's no way [Anonymous] are terrorists. In fact, he said "we know about real terrorists, you're definitely not." In fact, the DDoS is considered a "cyber sit-in" by some national security experts, akin to peaceful acts of civil disobedience. Which are reminiscent of the 1960's in the Civil Rights movement. Sit-Ins in restaurants that didn't serve African-Americans throughout the south were the main highlight of civil rights. Standing up for freedom which Anonymous is carrying out.

The take for Scientology is to call people who are against it, terrorists in any form or fashion. Scientologists called filmmaker Mark Bunker a terrorist when he was just posting films all over the internet about the organization. Paulette Cooper, who was nearly driven nuts by the cult nearly 25 years ago, was falsely arrested by the FBI because she was getting to the truth of the matter. Scientology tries their damnedest to discredit people because they don't want the truth to come out. This is what scientology is trying to do to Anonymous. Paint them as the worst thing possible: Hitlers using Godwin's Law (their continuously failed argument used for religiosity), and Osama bin Laden (failed argument against Constitutionalism and America).

The DDoS retaliation caused immediate media attention on the subject of Scientology. For nearly a couple of years after the South Park episode, the topic remained dormant. Scientology claims that it lost 70,000 dollars during 4 days offline. That comes to mind, are they a business selling whatever "Road to Freedom" or are they religion as they claim to be. You cannot be a religion and a for profit business at the same time, it would be a scam, which is illegal. Most religions and congregations wouldn't keep track of finances until Tax Season which is during February - April 15th. Alexa, an online traffic searching tool, can search the website affected from the previous day to a period of 5 years. That site can be used to search for online traffic before and after the event and to compare the amount of money they claimed to lose or gain. All the hacker did was to cause Scientology to lose face.

To describe Anonymous in a nutshell: Anonymous is actually a freedom fighting machine that uses dark humor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamAnon (talk • contribs) 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm surprised no one has mentioned Internet Hate Machine yet. Fephisto (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL SCIENTOLOGY JUST GOT PWNED

TIME TO FIND A NEW ALIEN SOUL SCIENTOLOGY

TIME TO FIND A NEW ALIEN SOUL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.166.8.240 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

These guys are awesome. All they do is peacefully point out hypocrisy. Welcome to the Civil Rights Movement, Web 2.0 style! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.175.31 (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What an Idiot
The hacker could potentially go to jail for 10 years, all because he stopped a few people from getting access to Scientology's website. Was it worth it? From my perspective, certainly not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.223.98 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Google Lisa McPherson. 129.12.230.196 22:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, he took the wrong sort of action. Essentially, his heart was in the right place, but his mind was not, if that makes any sense. - 75.109.77.86 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Cos tactics
Although it might be perceived as being illegal, the Ddos attack certainly does not constitute a ten year prison sentence. I wonder what claims the CoS brought to justify their ludicrous expenses. I have to agree that the means to resist an organization or unwanted idea ought to be done through peaceful demonstration and protest, but when these things fail to bring to light the many atrocities committed by the CoS, harsher means are necessary. However, by attacking servers I think Anon is sending the wrong message. The CoS will continue to use barratry to silence all opponents and critics and the only way their evil will ever be brought to light is by continuous and relentlessness public protest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.46.58 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Scientology is an uncaring bastard. How can you charge money for a religion? How can you believe the crap they put out?

Go \b\ And anonymous

—219.90.174.40 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.156.128 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An attack on those that attack the most vulnerable?
My biggest concern with Scientology (as well as quite a number of other religions) is that they seem to prey on the most vulnerable- the mentally ill, drink and drug addicts, or just people that don't fit in- and then lure them in to do whatever they want them to. What makes it worst for Scientology is that they're not even a religion; they're a business, and are run as one.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with them that psychiatrists are evil and only in the business of giving sedating medication from pharmaceutical companies that give them a back-hander of cash in return. But then they go right up their own arse and tell people they're actually from an alien race, and that Christianity was actually some film our souls watched many years ago.

They then impose some king of Stalinist regime on their Sea Orgs members. And since they're on international waters it's all fine.

Scientology should be brought under public scrutiny in every country around the world. Are you trying to tell me the brand of psychological terrorism they call a religion is OK? -Ronius (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I personally feel scientology is another cult just like all the other organized religions, but I think attacking them only gives them more reason to make them look good and individuals who disagree look bad. I think that hacker's talent would have been more useful if he made a website stating why he disagrees with scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtr225 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous does not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.74.36 (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

One Man's Terrorist is Another Man's Freedom Fighter
If Scientology were well-accepted, Anonymous would be branded a terrorist and a bigot. Makes you wonder about other so-called 'religions'. What would the backlash would be like if someone DoS'ed the ADL site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.16.5 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Frightened boy caves
Another silly little boy hiding behind the anonymity of his computer screen committing stupid crimes for lack anything better to do - immediately caves when confronted with his felony. If he really believed in what he was doing he would plead not guilty and stand up for his beliefs. If he really believed in what he stood for he wouldn't be anonymous. People who believe in what they do are not afraid to be known for what they stand for. The members of society that shun recognition are the criminals - that's why bank robbers use masks, why burglars operate under the cover of darkness, why con men steal others identities. Too afraid to face the world or to be known for their actions. The pathetic attempts of "anonymous" to cast lies and derision and to foster hate and intolerance will pass like a bad plate of beans - painful while it is being digested but always resulting in a bad stench and a pile excrement. Dmitriy Guzner's arrest and conviction is a much needed laxative that will hopefully flush out more of these fools. _08:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pleading guilty when there is evidence shows a degree of intelligence. Comparing a denial of service attack with a bank robbery is, at best, disingenuous. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pleading guilty to stupidity is no indicator of intelligence and pleading guilty to a felony is a good indicator of criminality. Hiding behind anonymity while propagating hate crimes is certainly disingenuous when compared to robbing a bank and would better be compared to what?, the twisted, 'rebel without a cause' cyber jihad of the religiously intolerant? Oh, I'm sorry, we are being way too hard on this poor misguided fool that doesn't know any better. Smart enough to cause a ddos but too stupid to know what he is doing? Criminals only protest laws once they are caught breaking them. Freedom of speech to a bigot is freedom to tell lies and spread discontent and a free internet to an anarchist group such as anonymous is license only to harm and disrupt others access to free speech. --Crokodile (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crokodile (talk • contribs) 19:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly it'd be better compared to preventing people from visiting a bank. They didn't deface their website, they didn't steal any money or information, all they did was overload their web page for a short period of time so that no one could access it. I'm not saying thats right, but robbing a bank is certainly much worse in my opinion. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are looking for more acute comparisons then perhaps we should compare it to preventing people from visiting a library. An internet website is primarily for dispensing information for anyone that requires it - such as a library. Preventing people from reading books has been championed many times in the past, lets see now, the Inquistion, during the Nazi regime, Stalinist Russia, oppressive regimes in Iran and other Middle East countries. Sounds quite like the idiots of anonymous, lets "save" everyone through censureship. Robbing a bank in my opinion is not worse because a bank robber's intentions, although illegal are quite well defined, whilst anonymous hackers and activists, whose intentions, motivations, connections etc are masked, carry out threats, illegal hacking and other mischief ONLY under the cloak of anonymity because once their ture activities and motivations are brought to light, they run quickly away like the cowards they are.--Crokodile (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I support them.
I support them! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.14.80.195 (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with "Frightened Boy Caves"
Honestly, if you look at the facts, anonymity is the only thing protecting people from Co$ attacks. They are well known for blowing charges far out of proportion, to the point of actually destroying someone's credit, and even siezing their assets.

An excellent example of this is the early 2008 Co$ protests by Project Chanology, where multiple reports of "reporters" trying to get pictures of their faces without their Anon masks or ski masks, instead of actually getting their story. Clearly, if you were in that circumstance, a Scientologist member trying to get names/pictures to bring them to court and/or harass them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.5.180 (talk • contribs) Honestly? If you look at the facts? If your "honesty" and "facts' are a measure of truth then innuendo, generalizations and unsupported gossip is the new level of integrity we should all aspire to! The only "attacks" that I know of that the Church of Scientology is responsible for is for bringing before the judicial systems of many countries around the world the Governments, corporations and individuals that have overtly or covertly attacked, libeled, slandered, stolen or otherwise infringed on their civil, religious or legal rights. If that is something that you disagree with, which presumably you do, then coversely, it could logically be assumed that you are for anarchist, anonymous, illegal infringements and other physical and defamatory attacks on legally incorporated entities to occur and that you disagree with laws that allow same to use legal legal recourse to counter or stop such activities. If you are "honestly" and whilst "looking at the facts" going to make such assertations, perhaps some facts would add credibility to your point of view and without which seem just more justifications for criminal hate mongering.--Crokodile (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

 * RE: "The only "attacks" that I know of that the Church of Scientology is responsible for.." Thieves have difficultly finding police stations. Ever hear of "Operation Snow White?" "Operation Freakout"?  And numerous other documentation that they are following L. Ron's stated policy on how to deal with those who oppose them? While religions can be dangerous, even Christians ones when they exalt a man or an org. above the Bible, when a religious mafia incorporates the legal system as well as police, then you end up with not only an exceedingly deceit-ful but a very dangerous org, that has  no right to portary themselves as the "victim."

 * The below may be called the "Sermon on the Money and it's Means", by L. Ron. Hubbard

 * "After speaking for about an hour at the meeting, Mr. Hubbard answered questions from the audience. He made the following statement in response to a question about making money from writing: `You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.'" - Sam Moskowitz, 1994 affidavit on Nov 1948 meeting of the Eastern Science Fiction Association

 * "Show me any person who is critical of us and I'll show you crimes and intended crimes that would stand a magistrate's hair on end." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletin, 4 April 1965

 * "Somebody some day will say 'this is illegal.' By then be sure the orgs [Scientology organizations] say what is legal or not."- L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 4 January 1966, "LRH Relationship to Orgs"

 * "If attacked on some vulnerable point by anyone or anything or any organization, always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 15 August 1960, Dept. of Govt. Affairs

 * "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly."- L. Ron Hubbard, A MANUAL ON THE DISSEMINATION OF MATERIAL, 1955

 * "When we need somebody haunted we investigate...When we investigate we do so noisily always."- L. Ron Hubbard, MANUAL OF JUSTICE, 1959

 * "So we listen. We add up associations of people with people. When a push against Scientology starts somewhere, we go over the people involved and weed them out. Push vanishes." - L. Ron Hubbard, MANUAL OF JUSTICE, 1959

 * "A truly Suppressive Person or group has no rights of any kind and actions taken against them are not punishable." - L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 1 March 1965, HCO (Division 1) "Ethics, Suppressive Acts, Suppression of Scientology and Scientologists"

 * Under Operation Snow White, “Scientology operatives committed infiltration, wiretapping, and theft of documents in government offices, most notably those of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Eleven highly-placed Church executives, including Mary Sue Hubbard (wife of founder L. Ron Hubbard and second in command of the organization), pled guilty or were convicted in federal court of obstructing justice, burglary of government offices, and theft of documents and government property. The case was United States vs. Mary Sue Hubbard et al., 493 F. Supp. 209 (D.D.C. 1979).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White

 * Here is more if you can bear it
 * http://www.watchman.org/profile/sientpro.htm
 * http://www.watchman.org/sci/historyofterror.htm
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scandal_of_Scientology
 * http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/cooper/sos.html
 * http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoint7
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoASMyv9Cek
 * http://www.xenutv.com/

 * As for me, I intend to follow Jesus Christ, which Hubbard and his org stands in stark contrast to. Thank GodChristianSouldier (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)ChristianSouldier (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Go anonymous!
Scientology must fall!

Xenu.net and Project Clambake FTW!

-66.41.147.177 03:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous has a point
Anonymous is not a hate group. Anonymous is not a group of lifeless trolls. Anonymous is a group dedicated to protest against hate, hypocrisy, and the like. The protests against the CoS began because the CoS was trying to censor anything that made it look bad. I'll be nicer than others, I do not believe it to be a cult. But I do believe that the CoS infringes on net neutrality, which is something I feel strongly about. And let me reiterate - Anonymous is a group of thousands, if not millions of cyber savvy people from around the world. Not geeks, not troll, not bigots (though i will admit, some may be). They simply wish to expose the CoS's hypocrisy. Here's another person they went after with good cause: Hal Turner, ultra-conservative white nationalist. Think about this. Why would so-called "bigots" attack other bigots? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.9.147.1 (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and Anonymous
Anyone that can do anything to stop these arrogant,hypocritical thugs who interfere in other people's lives, gets my vote. I think the e-meter thing warps their brains. They think they're perfect. That's why they fail in relationships. Looking at her(him) instead of themselves. You must think like them or you're against them. I'm against them! —117.20.68.76 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes
Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.66.254 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes
yes, Anonymous is doing the right thing. I mean come on, scientology pulled the biggest theft of government documents, but didnt get charged for it? But some teenager who hacks on their site gets 10 years in prison? Seems kind of out of place if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.192.70 (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

not okay
This is my opinion. —65.30.65.144 19:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous has the right to protest
Just like any other citizen in this country, anonymous or not, they have the right to protest against anything they would care to protest against.

It seems clear to everyone except Scientologists that it's nothing more that a money hungry cult that preys on people who feel hopeless, so why not spread awareness of that fact to potential victims?

DDOS is about as much cyber-terrorism as chaining yourself to a tree. It's not like Anonymous is hacking into government networks and stealing nuclear missile launch codes. I doubt that kid will serve one year, let alone ten. I say good for him. Spread the word.

Maybe someone should start a church of Anti-Scientology... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.208.174 (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

 * DDoS is still illegal. There are better things to do than close off access to a site just because you don't agree with it. That'd be like every time an edit war started on Wikipedia, the guy decides to DDoS it just because he didn't agree with the way they ran things. - 75.109.77.86 10:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good for Him
I do believe that what the 18 year old man did was right. Scientology itself states that they have a god given right to express opinions and challenge opinions by any means necessary. So basically they are pressing charges on this kid for doing what they believe is a given right to do!!!

yes
scientology is a dangerous cult

4@x0|2 wtf?
What is the point in sending someone down just for stopping access (temporarily)to the CoS website? At last check there were a lot worse things that he could have done. DDoS is about the EASIEST 4@x EVAR!!!! It is barely even worth noting. They should LOLing at him as opposed to raging. I say he did a good thing, but for God's sake (i'm an atheist), do things with a bit more attitude next time!!! Use of 4@x0|2 is really smegging me the smeg off!!! Anonymous.

I do think anonymous is doing the right thing. I am not part of anonymous, but have looked at all the information pertaining to the scientology protests, and it turns out that scientology is actually unsafe, and inhumane cult.

I'd like them to not be exempt from taxes, and if they watch scientology a bit closer, and make sure they stop doing cookoo stuff, then everything will be alright.

If anonymous can do that, the more power to them.

-AnonSupporter

my penis hurts —90.210.206.254 09:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC) u guys r wierd!!!!!!!LOL: )

Is Anonymous doing the right thing?
Anonymous is great!!! Rock on anonymous!!!


text:
User talk:TeamAnon

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews? If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

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

title: User talk:TeamAnon


text:
New York business receives package containing unknown powder

October 21, 2008 In Buffalo New York, a suspicious package was received by National Action Financial Services, a subsidiary of Sitel, Inc.. According to FBI spokesperson Earl Gould Buffalo, the initial call was placed at 10:30AM EST Yesterday. The mail department found the package, evacuated the building, and contacted the local police department. The package has been described as containing some type of white powder.

The police department then contacted the Department of Homeland Security, who finished at the scene by 3:00PM EST.

After interviews with several employees were refused, one agreed - after being only identified as KR. He said management was being very "hush hush" about the incident, but when he came in he jokingly said that it was a "regular day at work now".

National Action Financial media contacts were not available for comment, and the Amherst Police Department referred Wikinews to the local FBI office.

Special Agent Earl Gould stated as of 4:30PM no hospitalizations were required, but could not comment further as it is an ongoing investigation. He also stated the first responders to the scene did "everything right, and contained it immediately."


text:
Talk:New York business receives package containing unknown powder

Review 2
This article is unreadable due to incredibly bad grammar. It should not have been published until it was copyedited. This is why googlenews doesn't like us. Low quality.Gopher65talk 01:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good job otherwise though:). It's nice to have OR articles like this, where people actually go out and do reporting. Gopher65talk 01:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Well I did copyedit it. I did the best I could, and you only made all of 4 or 5 fairly minor corrections.   -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 02:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My corrections were mostly moving commas around and such, and that kind of thing doesn't show up well in the "compare versions":). Gopher65talk 02:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry about the "poor grammar". But I think it's better than this high quality news about the same thing:http://www.wivb.com/global/story.asp?s=9206993, and we scooped them by one minute :) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Paranormal Skeptic

Sitel Recieves Mysterious Package
Unfortunately I have had to fail the review for your article. Please see the review for instructions on how to get the article to a point where it can be published. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 18:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a transcript of the conversation would be good if that is possible. Also notes such as "I attended the scene at (time) and (info)," would be useful. Thanks,Anonymous101talk 18:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, nice article, and its always great to see original reporting. Anonymous101talk 18:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had just gone offline when you sent that final message, but its great to see that it is now published. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 06:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Paranormal Skeptic


text:
User talk:208.120.175.31

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:208.120.175.31


text:
User talk:207.166.8.240

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:207.166.8.240


text:
User talk:71.198.90.205

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 19:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:71.198.90.205


text:
User:Johnalexwood

This'll have to do for now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johnalexwood

title: User:Johnalexwood


text:
Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting

October 20, 2008

Wikinews has learned that the Church of Scientology has begun to falsely accuse the internet protest group Anonymous of a 2007 school shooting in Finland.

The Church, on October 18, 2008 accused Anonymous of being involved in the November 2007 shooting at Jokela High School, in which a man named Pekka-Eric Auvinen shot and killed nine people, including himself.

"Anonymous member Pekka-Eric Auvinen shot and killed seven students, a nurse and a teacher at Jokela High School in Finland before turning the gun on himself and taking his own life," said the Church in the October 18 press release. On October 17, the President of the Church of Scientology in New York City, John Carmichael, also accused Anonymous of being behind the shooting.

One month ago, an article on CNN's citizen journalism wing, iReport, also accused Anonymous of being behind the shooting, and several other alleged terrorist plots. The article also went on to accuse Anonymous of being behind the suicide of 14-year-old Megan Meier who killed herself after being 'cyber-bullied'. Scientology says the initial attack was done by a member of Anonymous named Josh Evans, who later turned out to be a false alias created by Lori Drew, the mother of one of Meier's friends. Meier's mother had previously had a falling out with Drew.

Wikinews contacted the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) in Finland by e-mail, seeking evidence or a statement to confirm or deny any connection to Anonymous and verify or debunk the claim made by the Church. Wikinews was able to confirm that there was no connection between Anonymous and the 2007 shooting.

"According to the leader of the criminal investigation of the Jokela High School Shooting in 2007, there was no link between the group called 'Anonymous' and the offender [Auvinen]," said Tapio Ahola, Detective Chief Inspector of the NBI to Wikinews.

The Church also accuses Anonymous of plotting terrorist attacks against other schools, stadiums and even plotting a mall massacre which would allegedly have taken place in Los Angeles, California.

The Church says that Jarrad Willis, who was arrested and questioned after posting the hoax massacre threat on 4chan.org, committed suicide while awaiting charges of internet crimes. Wikinews found that his suicide happened just one day before he was to be charged for a crime unrelated to the threat and that authorities had dropped all other charges against him, in relation to the hoax.

The accusations appear to be part of a Scientology tactic developed by the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard called "fair-game". The Church uses this tactic to harass people, often fabricating lies and defamation against those who protest or criticize their beliefs. Wikinews contacted the Church several times by e-mail for a statement, but the Church has yet to reply.


text:
Talk:Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting

OR
Stems from quote by the NBI, which I contacted. I have forwarded the e-mail to scoop for any accredited reporters to verify. OR is also the debunking of their entire press release basically. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Review
Left a note on your talk page. Please check it out. Shutterbug (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article should get this tag misleading Shutterbug (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry, but I don't think you are exactly NPOV on this subject. ?? -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 03:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 * What is that supposed to mean? That documentation is not documentation anymore? Please explain. Shutterbug (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 * You launch in here, re-write the article completely. Some items, but even supposedly how Wikinews got the information, which I find hard to believe that you'd know how we got the information we got...  And you stay it should be tagged as misleading.  The purpose of Wikinews is to bring NPOV news, now I know that can be difficult.  Your own user page says that you are as far from neutral as possibly can be on this subject.  All I did was review the article, and I believe it was npov or as close as one can reasonably get.  I'm not going to respond to anything else, or any of your other comments below.  I'm sure the author of the article will be around in good time to read and respond to you.  In the mean time, please remember to keep a level head. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the "falsely" could be left out of the article title, I think it might not be very NPOV. Just Church of Scientology accuses internet group Anonymous of 2007 school shooting sounds much better to me. --Sampi (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think the title of the article should be changed. I also agree with above comments by . Cirt (talk) 14:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 * ShakataGaNai, I am very level headed despite of your little ad hominem slants. I understand that the "reviewer" of an article should have a look at the verifiability of information. And the sources given in the article are not supporting the text of the article. All I am trying to do is to change it to something that is closer to the facts. The headline is misleading. What is stated as a fact could have more research to it. As laid out. It would be nice if you could explain how you verified the article without the needed sources available. Did you do your own research? Shutterbug (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The article clearly stated that Anonymous was not involved in the 2007 shooting. The NBI clearly states that. The Press release by the Church falsely accuses Anonymous of it. What more do you need? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Look, I'm not a Scientologist or anything but in my opinion the word falsely does entail some POV. The fact that the NBI has no evidence linking Anonymous to the shootings doesn't mean the accusations are without a doubt false. I think we should simply present the evidence as it appears, ie; the scientologists accuse annonymous, the nbi has no evidence of this, period. Also, if you look at the last paragraph of the article a clear POV is showed: "The accusations are part of a Scientology tactic developed by the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard called 'fair-game'. The Church uses this tactic to harass people, often fabricating lies and defamation against those who protest or criticize their beliefs. Wikinews contacted the Church several times by e-mail for a statement, but the Church has yet to reply." All I'm saying is that we report this from a NPOV so wikinews looks like a reliable news source. --Sampi (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The last paragraph is actually their own policy: SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, I really didnt expect that. We should add that link to that citation, by the way :) I still disagree with the inclusion of the word falsely in the headline but since it passed a NPOV review from ShakataGaNai I don't feel particularly strong about it either. Thanks for keeping the conversation civil even when we disagree. --Sampi (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome. Cirt (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No research and missing reliable information sources
Auvinen himself was Anonymous and announced his murder spree on 4chan before he did it. His words: "hey /b/ i'm going to kill people at jokela high school today in the name of anonymous" are obvious. /b/, a board on 4chan.org responded to his announcement with "DO IT FAGGOT" (same source). Per WIRED and other media "4chan.org is the birthplace of Anonymous" and their "Project Chanology" that ran illegal attacks on the Church of Scientology in January 2008. The article omits these relevant sources. As for what the Church of Scientology accuses Anonymous of in regards to Auvinen there is no source at all. All that is mentioned with is an anonymous ireport.com article and a drug policy blog. I don't think that is good enough as a source. Anonymous claims that there have been flyers passed out at Anonymous "raids" that had the Auvinen accusation and far worse allegations against Anonymous. Those have not been countered by any voice in Anonymous since January 2008on Wikileaks but might be worth researching for an article. This article is premature, based on rumors, on unreliable (anonymous) sources and includes a pathetic statement that someone tried to contact the church of scientology "by email" but got ignored. Shutterbug (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The NBI already stated that there is no connection between Anonymous and the 2007 shooting. The NBI is Finland's FBI. The post on 4chan you refer to was made at least 20 minutes+ after the first news report came onto the wires, and since he killed himself, it impossible he could have made that post. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you are doing your research? Better late than never I guess. How come Anonymous still is celebrating him as "an finnish hero"? Shutterbug (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Dramatica is not all Anonymous. Its it a very bad version of Wikipedia. Anyone anywhere can edit it, if that country does not block you. This is a news site and I am a reporter. Is it not my job to do the research? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Who researched the Auvinen case?
CNN reported at the time that Chief Inspector Tero Haapala was researching the case. Maybe someone can contact him as the obvious expert. Who is "Tapio Ahola" and how does he know what he is talking about? Facts excluded in the article:

- Auvinen killed in the name of Anonymous

- he announced that he would do so on /b/, the birthplace of Anonymous on 4chan.org

 * It was not Auvinen himself, who posted this announcement on 4chan.
 * Auvinen had posted a video message on YouTube to announce this shooting and the picture that was posted on 4chan had been copied from the video.

 * The archived 4chan thread shows that the message was posted on 11/07/07(Wed)06:56:21.
 * The clock of 4chan's messageboard is adjusted to the timezone UTC-5, which you can check for yourself on 4chan.org. Finland lies in the timezone UTC+2. This means that it was already 13:56:21 o'clock in Finland, when this was posted.
 * According to the police report :"The Emergency Response Centre of Itä- and Keski-Uusimaa received the first call on the shooting
 * at Jokela High School on 7 November 2007 at 11:34. The call was made by a pupil of the school,.."
 * This means, that it had already happened at the time, the posting was made. Several posters in the 4chan thread had actually pointed this out themselves only 3 minutes later and linked to a press release about the shooting.
 * TomNewt0n (talk) 08:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

- the copycat killer of last month, Matti Saari, might not have killed in the name of Anonymous but he per the Telegraph sure was friends with Auvinen when he went to kill 10 people in another Finnish school.

 * see my comment above. Auvinen had absolutely nothing to do with Anonymous.
 * TomNewt0n (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

- It is true that Jarrod Willis was about to face court for 72 counts of criminal libel on the internet, not for his earlier Anonymous "hoax" when he produced about $100,000 costs in police action for his announcement on the Anonymous board /b/ on 4chan.org, stating "tommorrow a shooting will go down ... I will not stop until I am incapacitated or killed by a police officer". Shutterbug (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Willis made a hoax got caught, charges dropped. The charges he was awaiting stemmed from an e-mil which had absolutely nothing to do with the hoax he posted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would be very interested to hear if the group Anonymous plans to sue the church of Scientology for Libel.....

Tomo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomokun (talk • contribs)

Deleting last paragraph
""The accusations are part of a Scientology tactic developed by the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard called "fair-game". The Church uses this tactic to harass people, often fabricating lies and defamation against those who protest or criticize their beliefs.""

i've deleted this portion of the article. unless the church has released a statement saying as much, it has no place in this article, as it is pure conjecture. - Imind (talk) 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. The last paragraph is actually their own policy: SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * so it has obviously remained, given its protected status. however, and regardless of the church's policy, or how clear a case this might be, it should not be stated as fact.  please, in the hope of maintaining wikinews as a respectable news outlet.  remove this statement, or reword it.  - Imind (talk) 01:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This has actually been written about in the past by other larger media outlets. For example, TIME magazine: One of Hubbard's policies was that all perceived enemies are "fair game" and subject to being "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." Those who criticize the church journalists, doctors, lawyers and even judges often find themselves engulfed in litigation, stalked by private eyes, framed for fictional crimes, beaten up or threatened with death. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * that may be true, but please quote for me where any of these outlets pointed to a specific incident and said, "this was the result of the their "fair game" policy", without anything to substantiate it. no respectable news organiations would have anything to do with such wording.  -Imind (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * TIME is not respectable? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * nobody said anything about TIME's respectability. mentioning the policy and stating that a particular incident is an example of it (w/o substantiation) are two different things.  i have no problem with mentioning the policy, if it can be substantiated, and it sounds like it can.  to mention this incident as a specific example of it is conjecture.  - Imind (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ''Founder L. Ron Hubbard advocated a policy he called "Fair Game." "The purpose of the (law)suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win," Hubbard wrote in 1955. "The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway . . . will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." Stephen Kent, a professor of sociology at the University of Alberta who has written extensively about Scientology, said Fair Game sanctions Scientologists to crush its enemies. "It's a very effective program, in part, because at least according to older policies, if the organization can't find dirt, then it manufactures it," Kent said. Cirt (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Modification. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * was hubbard speaking specifically of this incident? obviously not.  do we have verifiable evidence that this accusation mentioned in this article is a result of the church's "fair game" policy?  answer this one question, please.  - Imind (talk) 02:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * BBC: Before he died, the church's founder L Ron Hubbard, declared that anyone who opposed the religion was "Fair Game" and could legitimately be "tricked, sued or lied to and destroyed". Mr Smith said: "This is the most clear 'Fair Game' smear tactic from the Scientologists. They have accused people of murder, before, they have falsified allegations against people, and now they are doing it against us." Cirt (talk) 02:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * my friend, you are preaching to the choir. i have no doubt the church is employing this tactic, and you need not prove to me it exists.
 * as it is written it is better, but still suffers POV. - Imind (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is another really good reference for you to read: In a stinging decision, Judge Paul Breckenridge ruled against Scientology. "In addition to violating and abusing its own members' civil rights," wrote Breckenridge, "the organization over the years with its 'Fair Game' doctrine has harassed and abused those persons not in the Church whom it perceives as enemies. The organization clearly is schizophrenic and paranoid, and this bizarre combination seems to be a reflection of its founder. The evidence portrays a man who has been virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background, and achievements. The writings and documents in evidence additionally reflect his egoism, greed, avarice, lust for power, and vindictiveness and aggressiveness against persons perceived by him to be disloyal or hostile." Cirt (talk) 02:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * again, i have no doubt of the church's motive, and you can link to 1000 instances of them using this policy in the past. it still doesn't change the fact that this instance, in this article, remains unverified.  - Imind (talk) 03:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In this instance, in this article, the assertion is not a far stretch by any means. As seen in multiple above cited sources. Here is another: With the Church's documented history of assailing dissenters through its fair game policy, and with legal threats delivered to a couple of New York Anons already, protesters try to keep their identities guarded-hence the Anonymous.. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * that it is a stretch, at all, should warrant its removal from this article. these articles are for reporting facts, not almost facts or probably facts or even almost certainly facts.  just facts.  - Imind (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When Hubbard died in 1986, I was called to his secret California ranch, arriving well before the authorities were called, to help design and implement the strategy to control the media, as well as to calm his followers. For my training, I studied and had secret directives from Hubbard and others on how to handle reporters, how to deal with police and government agencies, how to create front groups, and how to discredit or destroy a person or a group with Hubbard's "fair game" doctrine.  It is not a stretch. At all. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * CoS releases a statement that accuses Anonymous being behind a mass murder. Statement from Finnish authorities discredit the CoS statement. CoS has a history of making false statements in order to discredit dissenters. I say if CoS has a problem with the story, let them talk to Wikinews about it. Since they have not returned contact, as requested by Wikinews, obviously they have no issue. kamnet (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * i'm sorry, but thats not how facts are verified. - Imind (talk) 02:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Further to the above discussion, note that similar allegations linking the 4chan community to the shooting in Finland have previously appeared in the mainstream Scandinavian press: see article in Dagbladet, with a 4chan screenshot naming Anonymous, article in Aftenposten. These are major Norwegian dailies. The Church could well argue that they merely repeated in good faith what reliable sources had already reported. Irrespective of the merits of these allegations, it does not seem like the Church fabricated them, as our article suggests. —Jayen466 (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the wording with "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" was cancelled more than 40 years ago. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology)#Cancellations – this wording was changed to the following: "Suppressive Person order. May not be communicated with by anyone except an Ethics Officer, Master at Arms, a Hearing Officer or a Board or Committee. May be restrained or imprisoned. May not be protected by any rules or laws of the group he sought to injure as he sought to destroy or bar fair practices for others. May not be trained or processed or admitted to any org."

This cancellation occurred several months before the term "Fair Game" was canceled "for its bad PR effect", presumably leaving the policy content quoted here in the preceding paragraph in place. It is wrong to claim that a policy wording that was in force 40 years ago, for less than a year (namely until Hubbard realised that it was a really bad idea to say that), is still Scientology policy today. —92.23.219.192 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

typo
The article currently reads a nurse and a teacher at Joleka High School in Finland. It should say Jokela not Joleka. Could someone change this? Spiby (talk) 09:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


text:
User talk:219.90.174.40

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:219.90.174.40


text:
User talk:136.159.46.58

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:136.159.46.58


text:
User talk:142.167.223.98

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 21:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:142.167.223.98


text:
Comments:Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting

What do you think about these claims made by the Church of Scientology?
Unfortunately, this just seems like more of the same from them. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 * This —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.17.181 (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Shocking...
Then they're so shocked that someone launched a DDoS attack on their website... Ihatefile007 (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolute bull.

LOL
I completely laughed when I saw this news. They (scientology chruch) really have gone beyond mastering the art of losing credibility to my eyes by now. --Z E U S0 (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I lolled too. Fephisto (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Linky

 * They're discussing it here. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * , ,

Scientologists Beliefs Are Dangerous
I think they blame everything on Anonymous because they blindly believe that Anonymous is funded by psychatrists. Thats another lie that these cultists believe. This proves that without psychiatric medicine, which they argue for, Children like these people who went on rampages, which the cult loves pinning to Anonymous, die.

Scientologists beliefs are very dangerous in the world and without the being checked, it could be worse. They say they have the answer but the answer is false, it doesn't work, there hasn't been any real studies on what Scientologists believe, such as the book Dianetics which is pretty much a 1950's snake oil scam. Their mind is convluded to a point that this L. Ron Fellow says is acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeamAnon (talk • contribs) 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabricating lies just to fight a group of peaceful masked protesters?
Anonymous has not been violent (physically or digitally) since February. The CoS is still fighting back violently against peaceful protesters. The only thing special about these protesters is that they have figured out ways to save their own butts from being harassed by the CoS, wearing masks and being careful when leaving (making sure they aren't being followed), and they have backup plans in place should the CoS somehow get their identities. The difference between Anon s and average protesters is the intelligence. The Anon protests are no longer drawing attention to the CoS, and they're losing support constantly. Its all a pity, too, since Anon was doing so well at drawing attention to the CoS with the DDoS attacks and communication jammings, but they suddenly gave up and switched to purely peaceful means, which, while it sounds nice and all, is not anywhere near effective enough to fight the CoS. It was about that time that I myself lost almost all interest in "Chanology" or "CoS sux GTFO", or whatever they're calling ti these days. While Anon likes to think that they are beating the CoS, I know they are not winning or losing. They brought the CoS to a reasonable size, then gave up. The Chanology Raids quickly lost major media attention. At the height of the Chanology raid, more than half the top 10 stories on Digg.com, and now, it has become a rarity to even see a single Chanology-related article on Digg's upcoming, top ten, front page, or even on the the new suggestion engine. Instead, there are recipes hitting front page. RECIPES! Anyways, I'm getting off-topic here. I guess what I'm saying is that the CoS is fighting back against peaceful protests that aren't receiving major media attention, and instead of hurting Anonymous, they are making themselves look like morons.

P.S. If there are any Anons here, I support Project Chanology and the dismantling of the Church of Scientology. I just don't believe that peaceful protests are anything more than a polite request for them to stop, with no consequences for when they refuse.

--Nuck Chorris 0 (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 * For the vast majority of those /b/ tards who took part in the Anonymous protests in the early spring, it was just something to do to have a bit of fun. Most of them weren't interested in a long-term battle to bring down Scientology; they were just in it for the LULZ.  So they drifted away over time, and the numbers dwindled.  But this isn't because Anonymous was losing its effectiveness; likewise, the media coverage lessened because the media got used to Anonymous as well.  One protest is big news; the fifth or sixth protest would hardly make a dent in the media coverage.

 * But Anonymous has indeed been effective. How so?  It was Anonymous that brought the Ex-Scientology Kids site into being, as they encouraged David Miscavige's own niece to step forward to help others.  Anonymous is considered a hard-core foe of Scientology, to the point where their presence at Katie Holmes' recent Broadway stage debut got them worldwide coverage.    And Anonymous has scared Scientology to the point where they are planning their public appearances especially to avoid Anonymous.    Scientology is scared, to the point where they are resorting to smear campaigns like this one in the hope that something sticks, and gets them the sympathy they are begging for.

 * This isn't the movies -- there isn't a single magic bullet that is going to bring Scientology down. Most of the short-term /b/ kiddies have left the fold, but the ones who are still there in Anonymous know that they're likely to be there for the long run.

 * And they're still giving us lots of LULZ.  --Modemac (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not this again...
They just don't get it. Anonymous is not a group or organization. Anonymous does not have members. It is an idea. Ideas don't die, don't bleed, don't feel love, don't crumble, and sure as hell don't give a flying F if some moneymaking scheme, Oops I mean religion, says they were behind a school shooting. Which I can guarantee you we weren't. (We had a good laugh on /b/ about it though).

PS: THE PEOPLE PROTESTING IN V MASKS ARE NOT ANONYMOUS, REAL ANON HATE AND DESPISE THEM. STOP SAYING THE MORONS DRESSING UP AND PROTESTING ARE ANON, THAT IS NOT OUR WAY. JUST A FRIENDLY HINT. (Because everyone seems to think they are.)

I totally agree. Anonymous tends not to agree within itself with methods but rather works towards a single goal. 195.10.114.211 09:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're contradicting yourself. How can there be a "real" Anonymous, if Anonymous is not a group or organization. It would seem that the only prerequisite is to remain anonymous. Also, again, how is it possible for anon to have a "way" if they are not a coherent group? Perhaps this is only your perception of what the "group" should be? --204.81.231.139 12:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is this so inconveniently absurd?
Accusing an activist group or hacker organization of being the driving force behind a mass-shooting and personal feud is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, I really can't imagine how anyone could believe that. If Scientology is really going to try to defame the group Anonymous why aren't they using a more believable accusation? At first I thought they were going for the "Big Lie" technique, but even this seems like it just wouldn't work given the utterly bizarre nature of these charges.

It'll be interesting to see if it works for them.

Could this be considered defamation
... and if so, is the church of Scientology exposing themselves legal threats. --Z E U S0 (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again the Church of Scientology has made more baseless claims against Anonymous. They never provide any form of reasoning or logic behind their allegations. They just go with their warped view of reality that says everything that a failed Science-Fiction writer (L. Ron Hubbard) says is perfectly correct and nobody can go around changing it and if people speak out against it they are terrorists. This is precisely what the Church of Scientology has attempted to do here, they have attempted to defame a peaceful group of protestors simply because they are sheding light on a dangerous and incideous cult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.160.253 (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally insulted
To think they would take advantage of a tragedy such as happened in my country! I take this as a personal affront towards the Finnish people! What the hell are those scientologist freaks thinking?! " is responsible for " I am shocked and disgusted beyond words. This sort of propaganda will only drive informative young internet surfers towards Anonymous, instead of away from them. I, honestly, am thinking of joining them just for this unwarranted attack by scientology and reminder of the tragedy that happened in 2007, and its relapse just last month.

Anyone in the US, I beg of you, someone do something to ban scientology! Ban it as a cohesive organization! They are even worse than the Westboro Baptist Church! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.230.103 (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what you get...
... when you have sex with aliens in a Boeing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.111.53 (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't be so insensitive... they were DC-80's. --204.81.231.139 12:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

lol. -66.41.147.177 03:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh.
Look. Anonymous is not a "protest group", is not an "anti scientology group", or any whatever else these stupid news sites seem to think. Can't any of you get your facts straight before writing something?

And to the author of 'Not This Again...', damn right, but you forgot rules 1 and 2, idiot.

Fair game
Is not a 'tactic', it's a 'policy' stating that members of the Church may retaliate on behalf of it. --85.82.179.226 18:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be consistent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group) Don't be like Foxnews by legitimizing myth. Wikinews should be better than that. There is no such group. --Burbledwar (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Impressive
Just what we've come to expect from a group with a belief/faith based on the musings of a science fiction writer... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.239.130 (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous is not a group.
Anonymous is not a group. It is basically just a categorization for people who post anonymously on the Internet and was given a proper noun name by 4chaners or /b/tards (people who use the /b/, or random, forum on 4chan). Therefore, it could be said that Anonymous is behind everything perpetrated by an anonymous person. The news is basically talking about a fictional organization, giving a name to an incohesive number of people, most of whom protest Scientology for fun. Anonymous is just a personification of everyone who is anonymous, not a real group. Anonymous is not a group. (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Actually, channer (or *channer) was the more popular way to someone who posted on a *chan imageboard (other than 4chan) until the Fox 11 news report came along. It only really took off due to the hilarious claims about Anonymous being an internet hate machine and such. The report itself was sparked by an largescale phishing operation by members of anonymous on a certain IRC network (It was referred to as Luk0r's house of lulz, most people not from the network know it as operation /b/spays or operation myspays.) While it could be argued that Anonymous as a proper noun is indeed a group, the affiliation between "members" is extremely loose, much like any other online community with no specific purpouse. --204.81.231.139 12:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology is dangerously ignorant.
Hey Scientology, if you like Lord Xenu so much, why don't you marry him?

If you haven't figured it out by now, Anonymous is just what goes by your comment if you choose... to... remain... anonymous. The Illuminati are more likely behind school shootings and myspace suicides.

 * I don't think Scientologists seriously believe that Xenu is real. He is meant to be a fictional character. Basically, Scientology is an ideology (not a religion) that nobody really knows what the hell it's about, like Freemasonry. Anonymous is not a group. (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bit more than that, L Ron tried to marked Dianetics on its own before starting Scientology, but it ended up flopping. He later remade Dianetics into a central Scientology doctrine. Scientology itself is mostly marketed as an alternative to psychology (it would seem that they hate psychology so much because it contradicts many of their own beliefs.) It involves funky voodoo like teaching cognitive dissonance and mental projection (really believing you are somewhere else when you are not.) In L Ron's defence, he was apparently taking copious amounts of different drugs (don't mix yer pills, kids) when he wrote the section on Xenu. --204.81.231.139 12:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Re protected talk page comment
In response to this, "an hero" simply means someone who committed suicide. (It originates from when friends of Mitchell Henderson, a boy who committed suicide supposedly over the loss of his iPod, called him "an hero [sic].") It doesn't literally mean "a hero." Furthermore, even if people claim that he is a hero, those people are just individuals and represent no group because Anonymous is just a personification of everyone who is anonymous, not a real group. Anonymous is not a group. (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Not to mention, that's on Encyclopedia Dramatic, which isn't exactly a bastion of serious political statements;). (Strangely, I happened to stumble upon (not using the plugin) that An Hero article a few weeks ago.) Gopher65talk 01:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer at the top of 4chan boards
Does nobody actually read that? Something along the lines of "Everything here posted here is a creative work of fiction. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact. --204.81.231.139 12:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What do I think about these claims?
Impressive... I mean, first scientology have 3 problems - They are popular for a lots of hacker since they are popular... - Some group made a war on them... Annonymous is one of them. - They are hard to believe with the way the act and the accusation made are important

I fond no link beetwen annonymous and the hacker world, firstly... This part is hard to said, since is underworld and well... Hacker are a bit annonym but annonymous also. But, it's exit some trace and substance: IP, date, hour and facturation... That some trace: I fond no important link, but I'm no police officer.

Secondly, I fond no substance on this accusation beetwen this accusation on annonymous. It's look a bit like defamation to me, but did they have proof? And who gona sue? A "nobody" sue for been link to "nobody"? Common.

So, I really fond it weird that kind give accusation ,like that, without substance. Is might be false, but I don't know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.226.53.250 (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

CO$ is nothing but a cult!
Lets talk about the people that have died at the hands of CO$? (Trumpy (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpy (talk • contribs) 10:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientology and it's damages.
/ merely wanted to say that no group has damaged more people in as short of a time. CoS has haraunged and attacked over 25 people that I know personally. The attacks are sometimes generated by the flimsiest of excuses. (One friend, we'll call him Ben, enjoys the movie "V for Vendetta" and is a huge fan of the graphic novel. He bought the "V" costume and was stopped out side of the costume store by the owner. The owner claimed that Ben had shoplifted and demanded that we wait while he calls the police. The patrolman who arrived is a friend of mine and a fellow bouncer at a bar I used to work at. He asked me for the truth and I told him the unbiased and honest facts. Ben was by my side the entire time and did nothing. The officer arrested the owner for Filing a false arrest claim. The man was out in, literally, 3 hours. All processing fees and such paid for by the CoS.) I don't understand why the store owner even sells the costume, if he hates it that much. That is ONE situation. I am not a fan of Anonymous' style of protest, however, we do need to show the Scientologists and others like them the line and say DO NOT CROSS.

T.J. Kibbee 10/29/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.199.176.125 (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

INTERNET INTERNET DSL OR RED WHITE WET. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.88.89.3 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's any question about the character of Rev John Carmichael, do a youtube search of his name. It's eye-opening, if not unsettling, even repugnant (yeah this is who this "church" calls reverend). While you're at youtube, type in "Graham Berry", he gives a detailed and informative talk about the "church". Other suggestions: google "Scientology + fair game" and "Paulette Cooper." All this may be disturbing, but people have a right to know.

No surprise
the church is stupid, some tactic they use ey. they should go find something better to do than to create a stupid religion that you have to pay for. I have better things to do with my money than to pay to believe in aliens that came in space ships that look like a dc plane, like health care for example. —99.151.87.175 02:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

False Claims
I think it is a desperate attempt on the part of the Church of Scientology to "dead agent" the anonymous group. Since it is a false claim it can backfire on them.

The Church is trying to survive as a group, but when they misunderstand or apply the wrong policies they just add fuel to the anti-Scientology fire.

They should be applying the policy that says for them to "ignore" potential trouble sources. They should review to find what they are doing that brings about so much anomousity and find a better solution.

It isn't the body of data that is Scientology that is at fault. It is that this information is in the hands of those who do not always apply it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.14.207 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

AVS: Anonymous vs Scientology
Whoever wins... we laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.154.138 (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Scientology Kills
Scientology Kills. A security guard at a Scientology church killed an unarmed man. For more information about the dangers of the Scientology Cult go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisa_McPherson and http://www.whyaretheydead.net

Scientology has already been declared an illegal organization within the Nation of Germany - a practice that should have been adopted by the rest of the world a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.128.101 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on, people....
Are you seriously kidding me? Maybe they're just trying to boost their popularity by pinning the blame on the closest looking, little known organization?

People: "Hey, you Scientologist guys think you know the answers to everything? Who did it?" Scientologist: "Uh.... They did! *points in a random direction and prays he's right*"

Yeah, maybe next we'll hear the Anonymous admit to doing that, and then we'll find out that they were under duress? —75.75.23.160 06:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous makes Scientologists nervous.
I think Scientologists are afraid of what Anonymous represents; A group of people who are, for the most part, unknown to each other, yet able to coordinate their activities by group effort without face to face meetings.

Anonymous is functional anarchy, and they don't like Scientologists. This scares the Scientologists, because how do you assail a group of people who have no names, faces, or practical identities? Anonymous mocks Scientologists, and repeatedly taunts them, but they can't fight back because they have nothing to fight back with. Anonymous has never commited any crimes (aside from maybe public mischief), and if someone who claims allegiance to Anonymous ever commits a dangerous crime, or threatens to commit a crime with Anonymous' knowledge, they don't try to hide that person when the law comes knocking.

Anonymous is the best counter to the cult of Scientology that you can find on the internet. It's too bad that sort of functional anarchy doesn't work so well in real life.

That's just retarded... - P

You misunderstand who, or rather what, Anonymous really is. It is not an organisation. It is not an individual. Because none of us can be as cruel as all of us.

Libel
I'm pretty sure there are laws against libel and defamation, which aren't protected under freedom of speech. The "Church" should be held legally responsible for these outrageous comments. 99.236.129.191 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


text:
User talk:66.229.17.181

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Just re your comment on the "raw milk" article, the template up top does say to keep conversation civil. Telling another person to go pay in traffic is probably not the best way to do so. Cheers, Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 23:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:66.229.17.181


text:
User talk:76.118.156.128

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:76.118.156.128


text:
User talk:Ihatefile007

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews? If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Ihatefile007


text: User talk:24.235.61.234

title: User talk:24.235.61.234


text:
User talk:129.12.230.196

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 22:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:129.12.230.196


text:
User talk:Gtr225

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews? If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Gtr225


text:
User talk:Ronius~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews? If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

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 Ronius. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ronius~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 23:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Ronius~enwikinews


text:
User talk:136.159.229.114

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:136.159.229.114


text:
User talk:204.191.74.36

Welcome
Welcome!

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews:
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Here are some other hints and tips:

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

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

If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:204.191.74.36


text:
User talk:Nuck Chorris 0

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank You for posting your comments on articles. Did you know that you can also write articles for Wikinews? If you choose to help Wikinews by writing articles the links below might be helpful:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and Comment pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Nuck Chorris 0