text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/archives/2009/December

Writing competition
Some of you will remember that I held a writing contest a few months ago. I wasn't very satisfied with its outcome, however, as only eight users signed up and barely 50 articles were generated. I'm thinking of starting another writing contest again in the near future - but this time, I'd like to advertise it more to get better participation (i.e., perhaps a sitenotice or watchlist notice). We could offer barnstars or something as a reward to help encourage/motivate editors. I've tried to think up a few rules for the contest based loosely on the previous one, see what you think:

 * 1) Contest will last a predetermined amount of time. During that period, users will receive one point for every article they created or added to significantly (we can set a limit, like 1.5kB). At the end of the time period whoever has the most points will win.
 * 2) We can have a separate contest for reviewing articles. For every reviewed/published article, you receive one point. It should be stressed though that this doesn't in any way encourage sloppy reviewing.
 * 3) I'd prefer that we don't have an "elimination-style" contest because fewer and fewer users will participate as the contest progresses, and we might not get as many articles that way. If we allow everyone to remain in the competition to the end, people might be motivated to write more to increase their standings.

Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk]  18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Hm, it's been pointed out to me over IRC that this is probably not the best time to host a writing contest, with the holiday season approaching in a few weeks - I didn't think of that. Might be best to start this sometime after the new year to get the best possible participation. Tempodivalse [talk]  19:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I am of the opinion that elimination contests tend to generate more content than non-elimination contests. However i do not have any evidence to back this up. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with New Year. Also think that people are likely to write more if they will get eliminated otherwise.     Tris   08:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, we've settled for sometime after new year. I'm still not sure if elimination contests will produce the most articles, but I'm okay with using that if a lot of people prefer them. I'd however want the restrictions for staying in the competition to be fairly low - like a minimum of one article for every two days. Meanwhile, perhaps we should advertise this discussion elsewhere in the upcoming weeks to the new year? I'd like to get as much participation as possible, so we don't end up with barely 6-7 contestants like last time. Maybe we could also link to this on other wikis (Strategy, perhaps?) to attract new contributors. (Also, feel free to sign up at User:Tempodivalse/Writing competition if you're interested in participating.) Tempodivalse [talk]  15:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Just as an update, there's been some more discussion on this at my talk page: User talk:Tempodivalse in case anyone's interested in Brianmc's idea. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Rough proposal
I believe a competition needs run over a reasonably long period of time so that there is a sustained increase in the number of published articles. So, an elimination-style comp. is likely inappropriate. If it is based on points per article, then people will self-eliminate if not in the top 10-20% of those competing after a certain period of time. Thus, there is a need to try and get new contributors enjoying working on Wikinews even if they can clearly see they won't win the competition.

For a points system, I don't think one point per article is particularly good. If a certain minimum size is set for an article (eg 1,800 characters when published. And, a minimum of, say, 2,000 when initially submitted for review) then award five points for basic publication of that. Doing this, with a competition that runs 2-3 months, will see people well into three figures for their score; psychologically, I think this is better and anyone who's chasing to hit 1,000 points has more of an incentive than trying to reach 40-50 points where only one is awarded per article.

There should be consideration of other projects; by this I mean if someone gets a new photo or other media file for Commons which illustrates an article in the competition, this should gain additional points. Fair-use media hosted here would be more problematic; new contributors could well be discouraged if they inappropriately take an image from a 'competing' news source and it is deleted. However, things like doing new maps should be encouraged; a lot of these don't display well at sizes suitable for inclusion in a Wikinews article so more focussed maps with a pleasing look could be very useful long-term.

Original Reporting is quite difficult to work into a competition of this type. Thus, I prefer seeing it not included for new contributors during the early stage of the competition. Most of us have to rely on a degree of trust dealing with people's OR, so it makes sense to be to encourage competitors to establish a reputation and get comfortable with the fundamental policies of Wikinews before trying OR.

Ideally, the competition would not just be restricted to English. However, we need to be sure that any other language involved has certain minimum standards. To me the simplest metric for that is that they meet the criteria to be published in Google News. This then makes Google a potential source of prizes and publicity. That might not work out in the proposed competition and be something for later on, but Google are already sponsoring a competition for one of the African Wikipedia languages.

I totally agree that cash prizes does smack of paid editing. This is another reason I'd prefer to limit it to very new contributors - to avoid the appearance of arranging to have ourselves paid. If I could pick a physical prize for the overall winner instead, I'd like to see it be something useful for contributing to Wikinews, such as a netbook. Alternatively, if we could arrange with Amazon to make Wikinews available to their Kindle owners, that would be a nice prize.

Again with the new contributors focus, I would want to recruit Bawolff to help develop some Javascripty templates to make taking part simpler. Someone has their article ready to submit for review, they're guided through a form to submit for review, and detail the points they think the entry should get. It'd be good to also have an automatic "standings" table for the competition; that'd drive page views and is an additional incentive to those competing.

To those of us in the West, a prize pot of $500 spread across the top 3 or 4 competitors isn't really a lot, but is beyond most current Wikinewsies discretionary spending to put up. So, we do need a well-constructed competition; then outside parties might be encouraged to put up prizes. I have a few ideas of where to ask about that, but I'm playing them close to the chest for the moment. Don't beg anyone for anything right now, we need a fairly firm 300-400 word summary of rules to pitch when begging for prizes. It needs thought out such that the prizes can go to anyone anywhere in the world. It also needs to allow people to contribute under a pseudonym, but identify privately to get a prize.

If, as I would hope, such a competition were to attract 50-100 entrants, then we're really going to need all the current regulars doing reviewing and helping people get up to speed; this is another reason why I'd prefer to limit the eligible entrants. Most regulars with 10-20 or more articles have done the work to find rules and policies they need to know; the competition should have as a secondary goal improving the interlinking and publicising of this information to make life easier for future contributors.

Lastly, and coming back to my theoretical $500 prize fund, this is only a newsworthy amount of money depending on who puts it up. If it is a well-known journalistic figure, or a journalist's union/organisation, that should do the trick. Perhaps better yet if competition entries can be 'syndicated' to them and gain even more publicity. If we work from the assumption that this will be a recurring competition then longer-term I'd want to aim for an independent judging panel to pick the top entries from the entire competition and award additional points once it's closed; for that, I'm thinking, again, journalist orgs/unions or senior editors from more heavyweight publications or public service broadcasters using criteria such as 'most comprehensive coverage of a news event'.

Now, that's a lot to digest. Think carefully before responding. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * This sounds quite exciting, actually, if implemented. If we could get even 40-50 new entrants, that would give a massive boost to article production, and if a portion of them went on to become regulars, that would expand our user base substantially. The key to getting as many participants as possible is in the publicity.
 * A few thoughts about how we could score the contest:
 * One-point-per-article is probably not the best way to do it, i agree; e.g.: an in-depth OR piece and a three-paragraph synthesis article would receive the same score, despite one being obviously much more difficult to write.
 * We could establish a points system something like this: You receive a base score of 3 points for each article written and published up to 2 kilobytes in size. For every additional 1kb of material added, you receive an extra point. If a significant part of the article (let's say one mid-sized paragraph) consists of OR (but not broadcast report) you receive an extra five points, plus one point for every relevant image you add to the article. This would encourage users to go out and do some first-hand reporting, and write longer, more in-depth pieces. OR, though, as Brian points out above, needs to be restricted somewhat, because newbies could have some difficulty establishing credibility and trust.
 * Another issue is how to divide the two groups, if we're going to create a two-section tournament. I'd suggest setting the line at who doesn't have Editor status at the time of registration versus those that do - that would remove most COI in the newbie group associated with allowing users to review each other's articles. If someone receives Editor status during the competition, they have to promise not to use it to review articles written by others in the newbie category. The two groups would be completely separate, in terms of standings, prizes etc. Most of the focus would be on the newbie group - but I'd like established editors and admins to be able to participate in some way, so they can help boost article count and have some fun too. The "regulars" group would also be more informal, e.g. no judge panel, fewer or no prizes,
 * If we're indeed going to have upwards of 50 contestants, we're looking at an output of at least 30 articles per day, assuming conservatively that each contestant will write almost one article per diem. That's way beyond our current paltry output of 5 articles a day, and we, even if being "all hands on deck", would probably will be over our heads trying to review all of the articles in time. Might be a good idea to see if there are any more users we could promote to Editor status in the time before the contest, to give us more reviewing power.
 * Not sure if monetary prizes are the way to go, it does seem too close to paid editing. A small laptop or some other electronic gadget might be better - but those are still fairly expensive, we'll need a way to fund it.
 * Tempodivalse [talk]  15:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Scoring system

 * From above, per &

As basic, I propose:
 * 3 points for a synthesis article; must be > 2KB (2048 char) when submitted and still above 1800 char when copyedited/reviewed.
 * +1 point per extra 768 char (I have concerns this may lead to encyclopedisation).

 * +2 points for a new image uploaded to Commons and used on an article (subject to loss if removed).
 * +1 point for local fair-use images (with very strict sourcing requirements &c.)

For original reporting:
 * Broadcast reports explicitly excluded.

 * 8 points per OR article (with above 1800 char requirement).
 * Press releases permitted, minus a point for each 'standard' and current source building on the article.

So, where are we missing points issues, should these values be tweaked in any way? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * 768 characters-per-point would be a headache to calculate, methinks. Could we use nice round numbers, like 2000 characters for the base article and 1000 characters for every additional point? Tempodivalse [talk]  15:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * As per my comments below (copied from Tempo's talk page), I think extra points should bw awarded for every third paragraph. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree because there is too much variance in what a paragraph is; it can even be as short as a single-line sentence. This, I think, is an area that could be disputed if a copyedit merges paragraphs and the submitter is unhappy to get less points.
 * Per Tempo's point, I chose 768 as ¾ of a kilobyte. I'm happy to see the figures reworked; remember, though, a lot of submissions will be copyedited quite strictly. "Noise" words like "that", "the", "and", "or" should be trimmed out where appropriate; this is why I suggest an eligible submission limit and a publication limit - allow for copyedit. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I still think round numbers are better, they're much easier to calculate and make things simpler. (I had forgotten that one kilobyte is actually 1024 bytes, not an even thousand.) One other consideration: there probably should be some proviso that content imported from other compatibly-licensed sites (such as VOA) doesn't give you extra points, you only receive points for original prose. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. So 2000 -> copyedit -> 1800. And, based on not allowed as entries (eg VOA counted as a copyvio for terms of the comp). --Brian McNeil / talk 02:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And, for "extended coverage", how about adding a number of points per additional 750 characters (close enough to the ¾KB, easy to calculate). As I said for the initial submission (must be >=2,000 char when submitted, still over 1,800 char following copyedit) I think we need to allow for a loss of 100 characters in copyediting that extra 750. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Contest length/format
Then there's the question of how long to make the contest, and what sort of system we should use. Off the top of my head, a few ideas for this:

 * 1) The contest lasts a predetermined period of time, at the end of that, whoever has the most points wins.
 * 2) We have a set "goal" of a certain amount of points; when someone reaches that goal the contest is over and they win.
 * 3) We use a knockout system, eliminating contestants until there is only one left. We could do this by splitting the contest into rounds; after each round, we eliminate half of the contestants that have the least points.

Does anyone have other ideas? Open to thoughts. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * My choice has to be option 1. There is a fixed, known, period and definitive end-date. My suggestion is a three-month competition, and if done as two-tier for n00bs/veterans, that noobs be excluded from OR for an initial period. I'm easy if that's X articles, or Y weeks, or both expressed as 'whichever you reach first'.
 * Option 1 has no limit to the number of articles generated; 2 does and, 3 will see volume drop noticeably as the competition tails off. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I too agree that option one is the best, just thought I'd throw some other ideas out there. Three months sounds like a reasonable time length. If, assuming conservatively, we have 30 total participants and each submits about one article per day, we're looking at 30x90 days = 2700 articles. That sounds almost too good to be true. Smile.png Tempodivalse [talk]  01:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Here's one other consideration: if we are indeed going to have dozens of participants for this and will produce (hopefully) tens of articles per day, then perhaps we could add a few extra leads to the main page, at least temporarily? Because we'll have extra output during the contest days, we will probably be able to keep all the leads current ... plus it might motivate people to contribute more if they see their work displayed prominently on the front page. Open to thoughts. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions copied from Tempo's talk page (to centralise discussion)

 * When I read your original proposal, I immediatly thought of a single elimination tournament with weeklong one on one contests. A person who has the editor tool could look over each of said contest.
 * Also, count articles from the contests beginning--RockerballAustralia (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Some random suggestions:
 * 1) I would prefer two groups (newbies and established editors) as (i) it is unfair to lump them someone who has never written an article with someone who has 100+ articles published under their belt (ii) it would be a shame not to include 'established editors'. Don't ask me where the 'bright line' should be drawn though (I wrote 30+ in one month: does that make me a newbie as I recently joined or established because of the number of articles published?) NB: I will no longer be 'new' by any stretch of the imagination by the time the contest starts, but there could easily be someone else in a similar situation.
 * 2) I think that an uneven number of jurors should oversee the allocation of points (three seems a good number to me). I'd happily act as juror to whichever group I am not in.
 * 3) Concerning reviewing, editors who choose not to participate should be encouraged to make an extra effort to review articles. Editors from the 'established' group can naturally review the 'newbie' group.
 * 4) One point per article is a little unfair: a three paragraph article that just passes requirement for publication is not the same as an in-depth piece, let alone OR which takes much longer to prepare. I'd set up a points system (which the jury would apply), based on various criteria: length, bonus for particularly pertinent images, OR. I'd happily work with a group of you to write the rules.
 * 5) An elimination contest on points seems OK to me, maybe with number of weeks reducing as the contest progresses. The first round would allow more time, especially for the newbies, to get the hang of it. Maybe three rounds (3 weeks, 2 weeks, 1 final week—to be tweaked could be 2 weeks, 1.5 weeks, 1 week ). Have a set limit of people passing to the next round with the jury able to select by vote one or two of those who didn't make it to continue (à la Eurovision Song Contest semi-finals). Being knocked out in the first week, especially in the 'newbie' category, is going to be very disheartening, and it only takes a contributor to be away for a long weekend to effectively scupper their chances. If I knew that I was likely to make it to the final, I'd make sure I was available, so fair's fair for the last week. Besides, the longer this goes on (but not eternally), the more articles Wikinews will have to publish!
 * 6) I'd prefer products and/or services rather than cash donated by companies as rewards for the winners (screams "paid editing!" a tad). That said, it's a preference and I'll not refuse $, € or dirhams.
 * 7) We could use the Wikipedia Signpost to publicise this. They recently advertised the results after announcing the start recent WikiCup and reporting on progress (can't be bothered to find the links for the latter).
 * 8) We should take note of the lessons learned at this year's WikiCup. The most important lesson I can see is the importance of getting the rules agreed upon from the start, and not changing them as the competition progresses.
 * 9) I'm not convinced that we should require OR in the final round, but if we adopt the points allocation system I suggest, it would de facto encourage it.
 * Voici my musings du jour. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the points side of it, I think there should be
 * a point per atricle
 * one and a half if it incorporates OR with referenced sources
 * two if it's all OR
 * half a point for every third paragraph from the sixth onwards.--RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

 * I don't think we should have any elimination at all. Contributors, especially newbies, are likely to stop writing articles if their chances of winning the competition are lost. Also, receiving any kind of prize, whether it's cash, services, or products, seems to be paid editing to me. Perhaps we can allow the winner to donate the money to a charity of their choice??? Benny the mascot (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely nothing would stop someone from donating a prize to charity; and, yes, I know it smacks of "paid editing". However, a prize-pot of $500, on a 12 week competition, 20 competitors, minimum 3 articles/week; that's 720+ articles. If the prize is split to 1st, 2nd, 3rd..., and the winner does 8 articles/week to win $150, that's $0.64/article. (/me makes note to have this bit of the discussion deleted before starting the competition ;-P). --Brian McNeil / talk 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Comp. Update and call to arms
It looks like I'm well on the way to landing some sponsorship.

Also Wiki UK (British chapter) responded today to news about "Papers behind Paywalls" highlighing Wikinews. So don't bite anyone using British spelling, mmkay?

Lastly, there should be a WikiVoices later this month (go dig it up, mostly Wikipedia, but just a glorified podcast). I'll be one Voice, Jimmy Wales will be another; I need one other Wikinewsie (would like as he's accredited and the WMUK VolCo), plus everyone else who can spare time reviewing and doing the Wal-Mart greeter shtick. Once I've dealt with some bureaucracy tomorrow I'll set up WikiVoices — the idea is to have people start at a real story which interests them and make publishable articles. Would be between 22nd-24th, I want to bring in a UK audience and perhaps some, er, *paid* journalists. The chat would support around 5-6 key people and up to 15 "callers"/participants. They use Skype for WikiVoices, I'm sure we can do one better after we've seen if it is worth it. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Only UK? Anyway, I would be rather busy around those days. Will this be like that Wikipedia thing? -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 03:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nononon! Not just the UK, but WMUK's press release is the most publicity we've had in ages. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, the WikiVoices thing is hopefully going to be end-December. The actual competition would be starting towards the end of January; give students time to get settled back in then have a go. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should be active on Dec 22-24 thereabouts to help out with reviews, and I have my welcome widget at the ready for any red-linked talk pages. :-) Tempodivalse [talk]  21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Count me in for reviewing and greeting, but I have to draw the line at Wal-Mart. I'm sorry, but I'm an entrenched Harvey Nichols afficionado. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

NewsTrust.net
As sent to the list...

I just got off of an hour long Skype chat with Fabrice Floren, founder of http://newstrust.net. Jimmy suggested to him it might be interesting if there are ways Wikinews can work with them. I think there are, but to some extent we need to check we're all within WMF rules, and we might want to kick a few more people about Amgine's MediaWiki extension for XML feeds.

NewsTrust is a non-profit, ostensibly a news aggregator, but they challenge people to review news and become more critical of it. They're a hell of a lot more clued up about reviewing and being critical of news than the feeble review widget in MediaWiki.

I was up-front with Fabrice, Wikinewsies will look at their site and say, "what can we steal?" Well, unless we run into the privacy policy, we're welcome to steal all their gadgets, and get them reviewing our stuff.

My thoughts on this at the moment are there is room for collaboration; feeding Wikinews stories into NewsTrust and putting the NewsTrust review/rating widget on each Wikinews article. This could be incorporated into the publish template.

Second, they have pretty good background on the sources they follow and are crowdsourcing "credibility ratings" for them. Could we pull that data into the source template on Wikinews? By this I mean someone reading one of Wikinews' articles scrolls down to the sources, it says "The Guardian", gives the WikiTrust rating for the source, and the cited article.

Fabrice had not had a lot of time to look at Wikinews articles, but will be sticking a couple up for the NewsTrust community to review. Cirt will be pleased to know that at a semi-casual read his "Glenn Beck" coverage was deemed comprehensive and well-researched.

I'm going to sign up on the site and have a real dig round in the morning. For now, there's the following links that might interest people like, ooh, I don't know ;-) Bawolff?

http://newstrust.net/tools/buttons http://newstrust.net/sources/the_guardian http://newstrust.net/widgets http://newstrust.net/feeds/todays_feeds

I also have a PDF of a NewsTrust presentation (~6Mb) if you want a copy let me know a suitably well-endowed email address.

--Brian McNeil / talk 01:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Although this will make Wikinews a lot more reliable, we might see a decrease in contributions. People simply might not want to put a lot more time into making sure their articles (especially original reporting) are 100% factually correct. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see it being a disincentive. I expect it to challenge people to build their reputations here, as expressed by NewsTrust's reviewers. And, if you haven't yet, I recommend subscribing to the wikinews-l mailing list. (subscribe, archive, NewsTrust thread). --Brian McNeil / talk 16:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I like the look of this. A lot. Can we have a mix in that sample we send them to review - maybe a few recent FAs plus a random grab-bag of 2-3 of the latest stories? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the general idea. Fabrice has already put up Cirt's Beck story and my INDECT one. Judging from their other picked and featured articles it should be our longer, more comprehensive stuff we submit. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the purpose of a mailing list when we can discuss everything right here? Benny the mascot (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it you don't have experience using mailing lists. First, wikinews-l is not restricted to one language edition (although dominated by English). It offers an opportunity to send courtesy copies (or blind carbons) to interested or involved parties. Readers get their own copy of messages and can review and respond when suits them. In theory these functions would be served by meta. Most prior efforts to do so (eg WORTNET) die after a few months. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but I really don't intend to participate that much in Wikinews's administrative matters. I prefer to spend my time writing and reviewing articles. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Major contributor categories
I've created Category:Brian McNeil (Wikinewsie) and added to all articles where I'm a major contributor. Now Brian McNeil runs on DPLs, including the FA bit at the top.

Anyone complains about me admitting I'm jobhunting on my user page Google my name and you'll see why I do it here. Apparently this would be pretty much acceptable for anyone who's a real contributor and not just doing it for self-promotion.

I've asked DragonFire1024 to create Category:Jason Safoutin (Wikinewsie) for himself. I'd like to invite all accredited reporters to do so as stage 1 of this attribution project. Cirt's the tricky one as he's ultra-cautious about having his real name known. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This will also work as metadata about the article. For example, at some point in the hopefully near future, I plan to modify the newsTrust icon so that one you click it, it submits appropriate metadata with the article (Currently if you click it, news trust asks for what categories the article is in, who wrote the article, etc. Hopefully that'd be all automatic soon). Bawolff ☺☻ 14:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that Cirt wasn't an accredited reporter? Tempodivalse [talk]  14:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICT): Cirt is one of the ones who has written articles about CoS, right? If so, he has a good reason to be wary of revealing his real name. (Anti-Libel: IMO) they are incredibly sue-happy over there, and will gladly bankrupt a blogger or citizen journalist by filing frivolous lawsuits against them. I'm not accredited, but if I was I'd also be wary of revealing my real name for that reason.

 * This won't solve the immediate problem, but is it possible to create some kind of anonymous posting account that could be accessed by accredited reporters to post stories about organizations like CoS? Such an account would have to be only accessible by people who also have access to wikinewsie.org (accredited users), and it wouldn't allow people to bipass the review system. It would simply take the burden of legal defense off the individual.

 * grrrrrrrrr I HATE this stupid edit conflict system. Lost half my post:(. Anyway, trying to remember what I said down here:

 * Having the burden of legal defense on the individual will eventually lead people to self-censor themselves out of fear. *Real* news organizations are protected by laws (in some countries) and by their parent companies. We have neither of those things. In the eyes of many countries we are, effectively, nothing more than group bloggers who try to maintain a NPoV in our blog. And I seriously doubt that the WMF has the resources or the will to go up against something like the CoS and protect us all from crippling lawsuits, should CoS ever notice that we exist:P. Regardless of whether or not by above idea about an anonymous account is workable, *something* needs to be done. I see this as a serious problem if we're going to force people to give their real names, and open themselves up to these kind of threats. Gopher65talk 15:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Some of us are brave enough to just get sued, and indeed to sue back (I have a longstanding promise to sue my government before the Court of Session under the ECHR should this come to fruition) but I would agree that generally people will want to avoid that sort of crap. The ACLU might cover you in the States, but let's not risk it. I like Gopher's idea; would the WMF fight to protect the ID of anyone using such an account? Time to ping Mr Godwin? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The key problem is that shared accounts are *very* vexatious. I'm pretty much against the whole idea of them. However, I do have an alternative.
 * Say a particular contributor comes up against something where they'd incur the wrath of the CoS, or even a government, they do the work on Wikinewsie's wiki. Sure, someone will have to create them a new account and they will *always* have to use it via Tor, but the work can be copied from Wikinewsie to here and it has been made considerably more difficult to track the originator.
 * It goes back up the chain from there. If you're in a hypothetical where Cirt has done a really damning exposé of the CoS, following the above, it'd go to legal action against the hosting provider to get the web logs. Tor would protect that but then they would know who created the account and take action against them. Might as well assume that's me; I own the domain and would probably be targetted at the same time as Godaddy who currently host it. If they successfully get an order for me to release who requested the account we're kinda stuck. I don't know if there's any way we could work with Wikileaks on this, their approach is to potentially not even know the source. They might can offer some advice or be able to put us in touch with techies who can. Realistically, you need a dedicated server somewhere that runs very short logs on rotation with censoring of these when writing to longer logs for usage &c. So, by time of publication here, no logs of even which Tor node someone wrote the story through. For OR verifiability we will have to have the evidence somewhere though.
 * Oh, and we're incredibly more geeky than your average journos. Everyone should have generated a GPG / PGP key. While encrypted emails raise red flags we should all be capable of sending them. Fortunately for me, Evolution has support for this built in; what we need is to get key-signing done so we call all satisfactorily verify each other's correspondence. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Would non-ARs be allowed to create separate personal contributor categories as well, or would it be restricted? e.g., could I create Category:Tempodivalse (Wikinewsie)? Tempodivalse [talk]  21:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll keep entirely out of any discussion like that, I've implemented a quite conservative scheme following the earlier discussion. I don't object at all for you (as long as you're not claiming the VOA based-ons). I'd be leery of putting a pseudonym into the journalists category but, there's a notable blogger covers UK politics from Ireland called Guido Fawkes. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm probably not going to do it, but was just wondering. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

US East Coast prepares for blizzard
I know we have lots of contributors from the US East Coast. I was wondering if some of them would like to volunteer to help with the above article? I thought perhaps they could upload some pictures of how the blizzard is looking like in their area, and perhaps collaborate up an extensive OR piece. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Chacaltaya glacier--too late for news article?
Since the glacier finished melting early this year, I'm worrried that a news article on it wouldn't be timely enough to pass muster. But I do think it is newsworthy and underreported--(I missed seeing it until recently, and I'm a fairly avid newspaper reader.) What's wikinews policy on this? Thanks, Richard L. Peterson (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally such events have to happen very recently for an article to be written on them. One week would probably be the cut-off (and thats stretching it quite a bit). Generally cut off is ~2 days for political type news. Sometimes sci-ency type news the cut-off is more lax, but if it was early this year, its probably much too late. (Unless there is some sort of new angle on it that just recently came to light). Bawolff ☺☻ 10:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't publish something a week old. 3 days is pushing, maybe a little longer if it's heavily underreported. Beyond that - sorry, too late. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with above. Three days is generally the maximum age a story can be and still get published. A week is far too much. Tempodivalse [talk]  16:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism category

 * Category:Terrorism

I noticed this category was previously deleted. I have recreated it.

However, I have only added into it articles iff the articles have the word "terrorism" in the title, and are clearly within the topic. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Don't forget the flood flag! RC is unreadable now. I'm not going to try and populate that until some dev gets of his/her/its backside and gives us our search with category options bug. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, good point, I remembered it when I was almost done :P Cirt (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Now it is at WN:DR. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this became quite a merry little shitstorm. I didn't even think of the problem with the category; but I should have done, as I've been hit before when trying to get Republican groups suspected in gun battle with, failed bombing of, Northern Irish police published. Hmmm.... Trying to hash out some rules looks like a good idea on face value, but Brian raised good examples where ulikely groups are branded 'terrorist' by oppressive governments. Terrorism could easily be expanded to include things like legal wars since they technically meet the definition, although no-one ever does. Perhaps a better idea would be to create categoires for aspects commonly associated with terrorism. For example, Category:Bombings could be created with a comment to note that bombings performed by armies should go in Category:Military instead. Category:Hijackings might be another one, noting that hijacked ships go into Category:Piracy. How's that suit people? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't intended for the deletion to provoke a shitstorm; I'm just one of the few still-active contributors who recalls that prior deletion and the circumstances around it. I'd generally say, as I said on the DR, you have to consider very carefully who calls something terrorism. Accepting that word from one party, say the Indian government, opens you up to having to accept the Iranian government calling pro-democracy demonstrators terrorists; to Israeli military action in the occupied territories being called "terrorism" by Hamas, an elected government. The very existence of such a category is an area where you can end up having on-wiki dispute and contributors wasting time arguing over definitions accepted by one group or another. I'll get another coffee and comment on the other suggestions there shortly; I can see a case for Category:Non-governmental violence. What's the counter describing both actions in a 'legally' declared war or police action by a state, or state forces? What would you call the Tank Man incident? Such categories will need strict rules because of the scope for dispute over their use. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Piracy is a generally internationally agreed term; written somewhere into some sort of "laws of the high seas". Bombings can turn out to be a misreported explosion due to faulty equipment (and there are those will argue some governments will stick with this 'excuse' or 'claim' contrary to other evidence). Hijacking, again, has a near-universally agreed definition for the capture of ships and aircraft. These (Piracy and Hijacking) are fine within a legally accepted framework of being non-governmental armed or violent action; Terms we can clearly define as falling within Category:Crime and law are probably okay. However, where it might be more Category:Politics and conflicts there is scope for too much of a judgement call leading to a dispute. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble I see with Category:Non-governmental violence is that it is too broad; when does it stop fitting that category and start fitting a common criminal category? A line must be drawn or it will be cluttered with stabbings, rapes and other such newsworthy violence that is far from the intended scope. A line must be drawn, and I fear the same issues will come up with the drawing for that line. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As I suggested earlier, a category named after War on Terrorism would be less subjective. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with, interestingly that particular category has existed since February 2008. Cirt (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Which, on Wikipedia, states "[...] the common term for what the George W. Bush administration perceived or presented as the military, political, legal and ideological conflict against Islamic terrorism, Islamic militants and the regimes and organizations tied to them or that supported them, and was specifically used in reference to operations by the United States, the United Kingdom and its allies since the September 11, 2001 attacks. It has since been expanded beyond the Bush administration, and has included such events as the Mumbai attacks." and is tagged NPOV. I don't want to import that dispute or offer Wikinews as a forum-shopping venue for those involved in the dispute there. Many of the same general arguments against the more generic term Terrorism apply again; to populate the category would individual governments have to in some way sign up to it? I'd not dispute that you could populate Category:George W. Bush administration's War on Terrorism between when the meme was introduced and Obama taking office but, when does that end? Where do you draw the line between signatories to a transient government's slogan and definition, and other governments "jumping on the bandwagon" because the term "War on Terror" suits their PR requirements? Perhaps some people need to go back and read Nineteen eighty-four. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a Category:War on Terror. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Wow, I see this turned into a nasty little fight while I was away. Glad to have missed that. :-) Not to take sides or anything, but I'm of the opinion that this category is somewhat inappropriate. I'll comment here as the DR was closed. By having a category "Terrorism", we would, in a way, imply that a particular act is terrorism or that certain people are terrorists. That in itself can't be neutral, because it's entirely subjective to personal POV. Neutralizer's comments in a previous DR sum up the situation well: e.g., Islamist rebels bombing civilians in Somalia would be considered "terrorism" by many in the West, yet the US government doing the same in Baghdad wouldn't. As Brian points out above, we'd have frequent on-wiki disputes over whose definition of "terrorism" we should accept. Just because the word "terrorism" is mentioned in the title shouldn't mean that we should categorise it as such. To draw a parallel - if we had an article like McCain: Obama's health policies are "stupid", we wouldn't add Category:Stupidity to it based only because it's said in the headline, would we? That would be POV. The same goes for the Terrorism category, perhaps to a slightly lesser degree. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's please not rehash the deletion discussion. Cirt (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, maybe i shouldn't have. Just wanted to provide an opinion since the issue didn't seem to be totally resolved. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cirt, I'm not trying to rehash the previous discussion; what I will say is I was unhappy to see it so abruptly withdrawn; the long-ago DR influenced my stance on this. I would have preferred to see it run its course and contributors not around at that time forced to consider the arguments and write their own justifications. This is likely a discussion the project needs to periodically have, and to look at where certain parts of a conflict can be specifically defined and categorised. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is what this thread seems like. Cirt (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To try and steer back to what we can do - I still like my idea of Category:Bombings and Category:Hijackings. Nobody seems to object and I do think these would be useful additions. Are there any others that need to be added? Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds better, it's less subjective than "terrorism" and can probably be applied fairly neutrally. Tempodivalse [talk]  16:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. Here are examples of NPOV categories, tightly defined, that are appropriate to exist: Category:Terrorism laws (articles about terrorism laws and legislation), and Category:Terrorism convictions (convictions specifically after individuals were charged with terrorism crimes). Each article has an implicit definition of "terrorism", which is external to Wikinews. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we have a note on the convictions cat you just set up saying that the charge had to be under anti-terror legislation? Just to prevent people adding convictions of random offences in circumstances people perceive as terrorism, as that would bring us right back to the unanswerable 'what is terrorism?' that started this whole thing off. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Cirt (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I might go ahead and start those cats, but should I leave the hijack cat as just that, and include any land vehicle hijackings (I think so, even if they're not normally terrorism they should be relevant to a hijcking cat) with a note pointing ships to the piracy cat, or should I just limit it to planes with Category:Aircraft hijackings? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say the more specific the better for this sort of thing. As long as there is already enough for at least a minimum of five or more entries. :) Cirt (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I created an air hijack cat and populated it. A bombing category would take a lot more time and patience to sort out, though, due to the number of articles it would need to contain. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2009/December

Bulgarian Wikinews
I am Seraphita and I try to start Wikinews in Bulgarian since 2007. But some of administrators of community in Bulgarian Wikipedia disliked a littlre this wiki and tried to discourage the volunteers to start.wikinews in Bulgarian. Now the project has started but has some difficult problems to solve. I would want to have page for comment: Have an opinion on this story? Post it!I have some issues to make myself heard by the only administrator who does not accept the existence of such a page. Without doubt using stuard internationniaux would need their help but without the support of the drafters of the Wikinews community could be effective! Thank for your help! --SeraphitaZen (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry, I don't know what your asking. It should be noted that well we at english wikinews can provide help and and assistance in implementing such comment pages. However, we are (mostly) independant from bulgarian wikinews, and can't affect the policies of the bulgarian eddition. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable usernames
For those admins who've not got it yet... If someone creates an unacceptable/attack username you block totally. No sending email, no editing talk page. Simply don't give them any further opportunity to publicise their pathetic little 1½-inch "statement". A large range has been blocked to deal with our current pest so there likely will not be any recurrences for a week, pending block expiry. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Admins should at least give users the benefit of doubt when they violate policies such as these, in my opinion. Remember that newbies aren't familiar with our policies. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, someone who creates profane or extreme attack usernames will obviously not contribute constructively to the project, I don't think they need to be given the benifit of the doubt. I agree with Brian that obviously inappropriate accounts should be hard-blocked immediately so that they draw as little attention and are publicised as little as possible. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * [edit conflict]I'm pretty sure Brianmc is referring to User:Brian McBullshit. In cases like these (usernames that are clearly meant to attack someone), I agree that it is entirely appropriate to block on sight and disable email and what not. (which i probably should have done in that case, but i just hit the block button and kept the default settings without thinking about it). In other cases, such as confusing usernames (someone once registered with the name Senior Wikinewsie) giving the benefit of the doubt, and still allowing talk page edits seems much more appropriate. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? For obvious attack names? No. If someone creates an account Penis you block them completely and permanently. No creating a talk page for Penis, no sending email as Penis, and no creating another account until the autoblock expires. We've had worse than that recently including deliberately confusing names similar to administrators, slurs against Wikinews, attempts to set Wikinews and Wikipedia against each other, and others. You'd have us do what? Give them a template equivalent of a smack with a rolled up parish newsletter? --Brian McNeil / talk 01:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And do you really think that every violation of policy is intentional??? Think about the username "Anonymous", for example. It could be construed as an impersonation of Anonymous101 or instead as the selection of a lazy user who couldn't choose a better name. We could also apply the same idea to "Jack69". An admin could techinally block that user for sexual innuendo (69), but maybe such a user might have been born in 1969. Should we really deprive such users of the ability to appeal their block or choose a new username? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some instances where if the user really wasn't intentionally violating policy, then that means they're so clueless, its almost in a way worst then if they were intentionally violating policy. If someone registered a username user:Benny the mascot kills babies at night and is generally a, saying they didn't realize that such a username was inapropriate, that just doesn't work as a defense. On the other hand, if a username is just mildly offensive, or confusing, the person in question would be politely asked to change there name. There are cases of people who had usernames that were controversial, subsequently changed them, and became very active contributors (for example TUFKAAP, although its somewhat disputed if his original username was actually against policy). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @Benny's last comment: I think that Brian was specifically referring to obvious attack usernames, e.g. User:TEMPODIVALSE IS A NAZI AND SUCKS!!!. You don't think that someone with a name like that is here to contribute positively? Of course, for less obvious cases, like those examples you mentioned, we should assume good faith. Also, almost all of the current inappropriate usernames were created by one vandal, who, although his accounts are blocked immediately, makes use of the "Allow talk page editing" to try and draw as much attention to the page as possible. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

News in pictures
I think that it would be a good idea to bring back the news in pictures section to the main page, especially having seen the release of articles like this: Please reply here if you have any suggestions/opinions. Thanks, Rayboy8  ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 17:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Winter wonderland: the recent U.S. blizzard in photos
 * I did like the section when it was there, but it seemed to get very outdated; without reporters on the scene with a camera, there is very little we can do by way of pictures—most articles use file photos. It would be a good idea if we were as active as, say, en.wp, but there's maybe only a couple of dozen active contributors here (and that's a generous estimate), so we have little chance of having a reporter available to take pictures for us. Den dodge  T\C 21:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We could potentially swap the template in and out with main about for one we do and don't have pictures. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bawolff has an interesting idea. However, i'm of the opinion that we don't have enough interesting images, and can't come up with new ones frequently enough, for a news in pictures to work well. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite like Bawolff's idea; if an admin thinks there's a really good picture of a recent news event, they can just swap the templates, then swap them back when the news goes stale. Den dodge  T\C 23:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only problem I see is that the "This day in the past" slot isn't very wide (at least on my 1024x768 resolution), so we'd have to squeeze most photos down to about 200-250px to accommodate them - that kinda spoils things. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Not really worth it to be honest. If it can be done with some parser function feature that randomly switches it out once in a while, that would be worth looking into, but otherwise I fear it'll go stale like it used to. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrats closing RfAs they've voted in
Are bureaucrats generally allowed to close RfAs that they've voted in, or do they have to recuse themselves after they give their opinion? I've seen a few RfAs here in the past where bureaucrats who'd voted had closed requests, but I know that on most other wikis this practise is frowned upon. Just wondering what is the current protocol on this? It isn't mentioned in any policy, as far as I can tell. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. If perhaps it is a close call, and you think it should be closed in the way you voted, maybe either get someone else to or double check with someone else, but most requests here are pretty obviously one way or another. If its 100% support for a vote, there is no point in recursing yourself as the decision to make would be obvious. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the comment. I was thinking about Rockerball's current RfA, which I voted in. If it keeps up at its current rate (50% support), it seems pretty obvious it won't pass so I think it'll be safe for me to close it. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In an ideal world, yes bureaucrats should avoid closing RFAs they have voted in. However, given the low number of bureaucrats on en-Wikinews (how many are there btw?), I wonder how that translates to reality. I'd hate to see a bureaucrat with a very valid opinion have his or her hand tied in voting because they know that they may be called upon to close it later. If it can be avoided by finding a bureaucrat who has not voted and explicitly asking them to close it then all the better; otherwise I don't think it will cause en-Wikinews to implode, especially if the result is not controversial. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, according to Special:ListUsers/bureaucrat we have eleven bureaucrats; out of those, only four or five are active. Given that most of the active 'crats have already voted, though, it looks like one of them will probably end up closing it. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On a small, tightly-wound community like Wikinews there's no need to be bureaucratic about it IMO. The 'crats presumably have decent judgment at the very least, so the fact that they happened to vote in the RfA shouldn't have an impact on their decision. – Juliancolton  | Talk 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I've compiled a list of all bureaucrats here with the dates of their most recent actions. It seems five out of eleven bureaucrats have made a rename, bot promotion, or assignment of sysop/bureaucrat rights in the past month; one more has never made a bureaucrat action. Only one has not edited this year, and three have not made any crat actions this year. – Juliancolton  | Talk 20:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

My two cents is, if there are other active crats out there, if you voted, you should not close. I don't close ones I have voted on. I think personally it looks more transparent, furthermore, since my early days around here thought it was part of the unwritten policy :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If consensus is unanimous, or every active 'crat has voted, I'd say it's all right to close. Otherwise, you should just poke another bureaucrat and ask them to close it. Den dodge  T\C 21:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Local news articles
What is the current policy on local news articles? I've managed to write three very local, school-related articles here, but this discussion has made me more hesitant in writing more. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, we don't have much of a written policy on this. There's Local stories and Newsworthiness but neither are a policy or guideline. The current community's position on local news seems to be that it's acceptable, as long as it is relevant or of interest to a sufficiently wide audience (although that's not very specific, and opinions for how relevant the story needs to be varies from person to person). Tempodivalse [talk]  01:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Is there any chance we could adopt a newsworthiness policy this time? Benny the mascot (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 * There is a policy, per se, though not a verbose one, in the relevance clause of Content guide:
 * News is relevant. Being Wikinews — global and Internet-based — stories about local news may need to have their relevance explained for our international audience. Stories should appeal to a large number of people.
 * This seems to me to be an accurate description of current practice. The first part isn't directly about newsworthiness, it's about including information that will make the story sensible for an international audience.  The second part is, I believe, really our operational definition of newsworthiness.  It doesn't say anything about how many people couldn't care less, only how many could.  (Cf. sports articles.)  Its implication is colored by being juxtaposed with the first part: it's okay if you have to explain the relevance to an international audience, as long as you can (and do).  The Wikinews community doesn't judge what is relevant, rather it judges what readers will judge to be relevant.  The Wikinews community does, however, judge what constitutes a large number of people.

 * Note the wub's general remarks at the end of last month's discussion. --Pi zero (talk) 14:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Benny has, as far as doing local news is concerned, got it. this is of interest to anyone in the town, possibly people in other parts of the state, and is clear enough that someone on the other side of the world could read it and find it interesting.
 * With the current number of articles-per-day, the main page does not pay any attention to Category:Local only, so they go in the list there. Were there 40-50 articles per day, or a dozen dedicated people in Illinois creating 60%+ of the daily volume with these more localised stories then, yes, change the dynamic page list for latest headlines to exclude local-only, filter the Illinois stories that get tagged with local to have the more important ones on the main page, and maintain the full list of local stories on either Portal:United States or Portal:Illinois; such pages can have their own leads, but they will end up deprecated if not actively maintained. Then the redirect United States would change from the portal to the category. Perhaps we need an inactive portal template for such circumstances; that would have been useful when many of the dedicated New Zealand and Australian contributors were unable to contribute sufficient material to keep portals going.
 * The GNSM (Google News Site Map) module being developed and tested for Wikinews will allow such pages – portals and categories – to have RSS feeds people can subscribe to, that use a wikinews.org URL.
 * So, I think, the structure is in place to grow the scope of contributions at local level. Where there is a problem is contributors doing such ultra-local work have hurdles in respect of verifiability. They may need to build the Wikinews community's trust through work on larger stories that can more readily be fact-checked, learn how to do good original reporting notes, and generally build a feel for what might have an audience - local, national, or international. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your compliments. Students raise record amounts of money during Christmas fundraiser at Benet Academy, Illinois is thus far my most rewarding work on Wikinews. I was even surprised to discover that a German version has been published here.
 * The same could probably be said of other citizen journalists covering local news. I would argue that a reporter who has a deep connection with the subject of his or her article and is working for free has a more sincere appreciation of his or her work than a professional journalist who writes for pay. (There are exceptions, however.) Therefore, Wikinews has much more potential to grow if we emphasize local news. If we reach out to college and municipal news organizations, we might have a lot more articles coming in. Any thoughts? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here's a general thought: WMF-style projects succeed best on large numbers of contributors, the larger the better.  There are lots of localities, and only one globe; and just about everyone lives in a place, so local news is a great motivator.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Cobweb removal required
I've made a start on improving the Writing an article policy. It waffles terribly, rambles, and fails to get to the point. It needs to be about half the length it currently is.

I think most of the policies could do with being clipped extensively and cross-referenced both internally, and to other policies and sub-sections thereof. Write policy in a news style.

It would be good to have several newer editors go over that policy and suggest improvements, plus points where it does not at least link to an answer to a question that would have helped them. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the instructions should place less emphasis on formatting categories and links and put more emphasis on writing style. Learning how to format an article is easier that learning how to actually write one. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That is probably a good point but, the details for that are spread across a lot of policies; much of the detail is in the style guide. And, are people going to take kindly to being told to take an English lesson before they contribute? This is where an essay, say, News-style writing (WN:NEWSSTYLE) would be most useful. That has to be written by newer contributors such as yourself.
 * I wrote WN:ARTICLE after I'd been on Wikinews a long time; it was informed, and influenced, by mass-archiving 3,000 - 4,000 articles and firming up the WN:ARCHIVE policy.
 * What I'm proposing is taking the folksy-rambling out of policy and, as you point out here, have what might not be official policies (supplementary essays) the community broadly agrees on. As I found with the CRIA story, reading a lot of legal documents makes you write in a legalistic style; the policies and complementary essays need written in a news style, and common faults like getting duped by Fox News' nonexistent line between editorial and news are the sort of gotchas to highlight. Want to give WN:NEWSSTYLE a go? It would certainly help focus on how to condense the writing an article policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

One other point that might be usefull for complete newcomers is for those wishing to dive in some kind of WN:CRASHCOURSE guide started. It talks in very breif about the absolute basics and core policies, so that you can start contributing, and people will help you polish off your efforts. Just to throw that out there. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

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


text:
User talk:Adjohnson916

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  21:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Adjohnson916


text:
MediaWiki:Common.css/User talk:Brian McNeil

/* CSS placed here will be applied to all skins */

#centralNotice { font-size: 60%; } #center-logo { display: none !important; }

display: none; }
 * 1) firstHeading {


text: Wikinews:Print edition/December 2009

title: Wikinews:Print edition/December 2009


title: File:19December2009.pdf


text:
User talk:Calvingluck

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  23:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Calvingluck


text:
Talk:NASA flyby of Saturn moon Titan produces first image of liquid on another world

Not "first"
This is not the "first image of liquid" on another world (Titan's lakes, have, for example, been imaged before). It's the first image of a "specular reflection". Aldaron (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * It is the first photograph. Perhaps I was a little careless with the title. Too long working in Wikimedia projects makes you think of pictures as 'images'. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * What are the Huygens images then? How are they not photographs if this is? Aldaron (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Got any proof of liquid? Answer: Yes, doubtless, but not in the pictures, at a pure guess because they aimed for a dry spot. Take it up with NASA; it was their anouncement. I doubt they'd fuck it up. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I agree, I doubt they would: image, image, image, image, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldaron (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

 * And they say what I expected them to. They're very cautious. You know it's a lake, I know it's a lake, NASA knew they were lakes, but no-one said: "Look, there's liquid". For links one and three: "giant lake-like feature" (emphasis added) and "most likely a hydrocarbon lake" don't exactly say liquid. Second image is strongly suggestative of liquid, going so far as to proclaim that there is a lake, but again stops short of actually saying so. From the talk of possible flooding and possibly drained lakes they seem none too sure on that one. (Before saving I went back and checked that one. It's a radar image too.) On the last one the words "This radar image..." jump out at me and confirm this is not a photograph; as I said above, I can concede that I should have used a less ambiguous word. I haven't read the full of any of those descriptions but I wouldn't be surprised to discover they were all radar images. I say again: NASA said it. CNN repeated it; while I can accept that CNN are not exactly incapable of failing they are smart enough to parrot a press release properly. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Image replacement
File:Kraken Mare on Titan, Cassini.jpg will soon be deleted from Commons; please substitute it in the article by File:PIA12481_Titan_specular_reflection.jpg. --Túrelio (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * editprotected See above. - Xbspiro (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Mark Talk to me 14:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2009/52

Welcome to the Wikinews World News Quiz, giving you a chance to test your knowledge on this week's news.

Last Updated: December 20, 2009

title: Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2009/52


text:
Comments:US East Coast prepares for blizzard

Are you in the area? Have you been affected in some way by this storm?
Storm is a major bust thus far in my area. – Juliancolton  | Talk 03:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Bust" - you mean there wasn't much of a storm where you live? Is that why you didn't upload any pictures? :-P Tempodivalse [talk]  03:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. We were expecting up to 10 inches, but ended up with a trace or an inch. New York City got pummeled though. I might write a follow-up story today with the observations from where there actually was snow... – Juliancolton  | Talk 16:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Area? You mean how the half the f'ing East Coast. But yeah, it snowed here. About 10 inches or so. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 16:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could upload some photos? I think this would be an ideal topic for a mini-photoessay. Tempodivalse [talk]  16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See Winter wonderland: the recent U.S. blizzard in photos, I'll look for freely licensed photos and hope someone will upload a few. :) – Juliancolton  | Talk 01:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where Julian lives, but we got about a foot and a half average here on the Cape. Schools were closed today everywhere near here, but it's not like those of us in college have to make it up or anything. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

US East Coast prepares for Dec.19, 2009 Blizzard
Hi..I live in Jackson, NJ and we got an unblievable 26 inches. The storm hit on a Saturday and the kids here didn't go back to school until Wednesday, with the crews steady working. This is one storm we will remember! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PK18 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


text: Category:Benet Academy

title: Category:Benet Academy


text:
US university Penn State wins 2009 NCAA Division I volleyball championship

December 20, 2009

Erasing a two-set deficit, the Penn State University Nittany Lions came from behind in dramatic fashion to win the 2009 NCAA Division 1 women's volleyball championship over the University of Texas Longhorns, held Dec. 19 in Tampa, Florida. Down 2-0, Penn State won the next three sets to extend their winning streak to 102 matches and in the process earning their third consecutive volleyball title.

Texas' Destinee Hooker led all players with 34 kills, .316 hitting percentage and collected 17 digs. National volleyball Player of the Year Megan Hodges led the Nittany Lions with 21 kills, 13 digs and 5 blocks.

The set scores were 22-25, 20-25, 25-23, 25-21, 15-13.

Penn State, the top-ranked team in the country, had a fairly easy route to the title game, beating all but of their opponents in straight sets. In the first and second rounds, they defeated Binghamton and the University of Pennsylvania in straight sets, before sweeping Florida and California in regional action. In the semi finals, they dropped their only set of the playoffs in a 3-1 victory over Hawaii.

No. 2 Texas' route to the championship game was as easy, defeating Texas St. (3-0) and Texas Christian (3-0) in the first two rounds. In regional action, the Longhorns defeated Texas A&M (3-0) and Nebraska (3-1) to reach the semi final, where they swept Minnesota (3-0).

The win was also number 1,001 for Penn State coach Russ Rose.


text:
Talk:US university Penn State wins 2009 NCAA Division I volleyball championship

Broadcast report
Watched some of the game on ESPN2. Calebrw (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Context
Simply saying "Penn State" by itself might not be immediately clear to the non-US reader. Could we perhaps make a mention of what country/state this is taking place, for extra clarification? Tempodivalse [talk]  04:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I thought about out that part only after I had gone to bed. Calebrw (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews talk:Newsworthiness

Expansion
Following some [not so] recent discussions at the policy WC, i've decided to take a hack at trying to determine what is "newsworthy" enough for inclusion here. I think it's important to have this, to avoid future confusion over our definition of newsworthiness. Please feel free to change or remove stuff you disagree with (but please bring the issue over here). Tempodivalse [talk]  04:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Essay status
Recently, "newsworthiness" has been part of the criteria to publish news articles, yet this is still an "essay". What's the point of enforcing the "newsworthiness" if it's still an essay? Will it retain the "essay" status? --George Ho (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * An essay can be about something that's enforced. A lot of documentation on Wikinews has lesser status than the thing it documents; best not to underestimate important principles based on the status of pages describing them.  Newsworthiness has always been part of the criteria to publish news articles.  The community spend many years slowly thrashing out how to articulate the principles involved. That said, it's probably reasonable by now to promote this to a guideline; in practice it's heavily relied upon. --Pi zero (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I'm a little concerned about instruction creep. Some things described here are policy, others are guideline or simply convention. --Pi zero (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Then you need a consensus to promote the essay to a "guideline" status. Right now, I see many people becoming increasingly frustrated with a very low monthly amount of published articles. Also, how can consensus be achieved with the very low community here? --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The best way this can be helped is if each one of us writes one story a week. This can be your own or this can be picking on someone else's draft that just appeared in the newsroom and is newsworthy. --Gryllida (chat) 08:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, maybe the whole page should be written from scratch in order to retain the essay status. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the way the page is written; seriously, it's a high-quality document. "many people becoming increasingly frustrated"? Nah, newcomers being frustrated is a constant on any project that maintains standards (it happens on Wikipedia too, but they get away with it partly by —come to think of it— unconscious misdirection, channeling that frustration into discussions that ultimately contribute to the project's toxic social atmosphere).  Well, that, plus also-usual flak from off-project factions that lack tolerance for projects that work differently than theirs do.  News production is hard, which is part of what makes it worth doing (that was demonstrated by the project fork a few years ago, which died of insufficiently high standards). Moreover, though, I'm not proposing any change in the status of the principles involved; I only meant to suggest a change in the status of the page, which describes things ranging from, as mentioned, policies to conventions.  Anyone who doesn't take pages such as this, or WN:PILLARS, seriously because they're called "essays" is missing the point.  So the more I think about it, the more it seems we're better off leaving it as-is. --Pi zero (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is w:template:Supplement, but it's used as clarification for one of existing rules there. It can be copied here, right? --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Re whether a typical Wikipedia template can be used here, I know of three positions: no, because the licenses are incompatible; yes, because the license difference doesn't apply to code (that position sounds hinky to me); yes, because simple templates are below the level of originality for copyright to kick in anyway.  However, this [supplement thing] strikes me as rather bureaucratic.  And, not thoroughly vetted by the community is clearly wrong in this case.  That's an argument in favor of just changing the tag here to acknowledge this is, in fact, a guideline. --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would support such a change: that is, to mark this as a guideline (or a policy). I personally consider this a well written, concise and enforced document. --Gryllida (chat) 06:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy
If we want to elevate this to policy, it needs careful consideration and to put forward for consensus from Wikinewsies. --SVTCobra 20:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that the template has just policies underneath the three. What about "Style guide" (guideline), which is included in Template:Policy nav1? --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Something to ponder. --SVTCobra 20:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The name of the template is simplified; it does say 'policies and guidelines'. This page is descriptive on about the same level as the style guide; I think it's happy where it is. --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

title: Wikinews talk:Newsworthiness


text:
User talk:Gnom

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  04:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gnom


text:
MediaWiki:Flaggedrevs-stable-categories

 * Published
 * Interview
 * Original reporting

title: MediaWiki:Flaggedrevs-stable-categories


text:
MediaWiki talk:Flaggedrevs-stable-categories

Please note: We only need category:Published in this list. This list prevents the category timestamp from changing if a vandal removes a category from an article (assuming the revision is not sighted). We only use the timestamp from category:Published, the other categories we do not use the timestamp from. As Such, Do Not Add Every Single Category In The World To This Page!. It really only needs cat published. The OR and interview cats are thrown in here for good measure, but they really do not need to be here. Cheers. See 20813 for details. This page was previously known as MediaWiki talk:FlaggedRevs-stable-categories. That page does not do anything. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


text: User talk:122.158.78.145

title: User talk:122.158.78.145


text:
Democratic holdout agrees to support health care reform in US

December 20, 2009

A conservative Democratic United States senator has agreed to supply the key 60th vote needed for passage of a sweeping health care reform package. Senate Democrats have reached a breakthrough in their struggle to pass sweeping heath care reform legislation, lining up the 60 votes needed to overcome fierce Republican opposition. Senators met Saturday in Washington, D.C. during a driving snowstorm in a frenzied effort to move forward on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.

The spotlight was on moderate Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who had been the last holdout as Senate Democrats raced against the clock and against determined Republican opposition to pass their health care bill by their self-imposed deadline of December 25th, Christmas.

Nelson said he is now ready to vote for cloture, which would advance the bill. "Change is never easy, but change is what is necessary in America today and and that is why I intend to vote for cloture, I intend to vote for cloture and for health care reform," he said.

Nelson said he decided to support the bill after winning new concessions from Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to limit the availability of abortions in insurance sold under the new legislation along with millions of dollars in Medicaid funding for Nebraska.

The legislation would extend health benefits to more than 30 million uninsured Americans and impose new regulations on the health insurance industry.

Senator Reid of Nevada has been working for months to win over one holdout Democratic senator after another, repeatedly altering the bill to satisfy different demands. Reid says reform is essential. "The broken system cannot continue and it will not continue. When President Obama signs this bill into law, we will officially end the era in which insurance companies win only when patients lose," he said.

Nelson's support should pave the way for Senate Democrats to win the first of a series of crucial procedural votes scheduled to begin at one o'clock in the morning on Monday and set to conclude — if everything goes smoothly for them — with final passage on Christmas Eve.

Republicans have been using a number of parliamentary procedures to delay action on the bill, including forcing a reading on the Senate floor Saturday of Reid's 338-pages of last minute amendments. Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky responded to the apparent Democratic breakthrough. "And Democrats are forcing a vote on it, as I indicated, over the weekend, counting on the fact that the American people are preoccupied with Christmas and not paying much attention to what they are doing," he said.

Republicans are unified in their opposition, saying the bill is too expensive and will not solve the problems with the current health care system. Senator McConnell dismissed claims by Democrats that the bill is historic. "The history that is being made here, make no mistake about it, the history that is being made here, is the ignoring of the will of the American people," he said.

Senator John McCain of Arizona echoed those comments in the weekly Republican radio address saying, "Regrettably, there’s nothing in this legislation that effectively addresses the problem of health care hyperinflation. In fact, experts tell us the Democrat legislation makes matters worse."

Democrats say they have been trying to reform the nation's health care system for close to 70 years, ever since President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in office. Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut was emotional as victory seemed within reach. "All we are trying to do is to guarantee that if you are a fellow citizen of ours, and you are struck with illness or a loved one is, that you will never again have that fear, that you will end up losing your home, your job, your retirement and your life savings because you have been afflicted with an illness through no fault of your own."

If the Senate is able to pass a bill next week, it would be viewed as a major victory for President Obama. But the bill would still need to be reconciled with a health-care reform bill passed last month by the House of Representatives before the president could sign it into law next year.


text: Talk:Democratic holdout agrees to support health care reform in US


text:
Eurostar suspended due to cold weather

December 20, 2009 Eurostar trains have been suspended today due to cold weather, and further snowfall is predicted in the United Kingdom, while the rail company attempts to work out what caused a series of electrical flaws on Friday.

On Friday night, more than 2,000 people were trapped in the Channel Tunnel for sixteen hours after the cold weather and condensation caused a number of electrical faults.

Calais port, in the French city where the Channel Tunnel terminates, was also closed yesterday, causing traffic problems on the roads around the English cities of Dover and Folkestone, near the tunnel's British entrance.

The Conservative Member of the European Parliament for the south-east of England, Nirj Deva, has called for Eurostar chief executive Richard Brown to resign, saying that it would be the "decent thing" to do in the light of "astonishing incompetence". Brown has apologised for the incident, and said it was "absolutely unprecedented", and conceded that "it took too long to get the trains out".

Kent Police say that there is now very little traffic waiting for a place on the Channel Tunnel, with more than 3,500 vehicles having crossed the English Channel on ferries. Supt. Andy Rabey made a statement on the suspension: "Overnight we've been working very hard with our partners to clear the queues and help people get away for Christmas. If you have a crossing booked and haven't set out yet, check with your operator before leaving home." A Eurostar spokeswoman issued an apology, in which she said that "it's not possible" to run services.

title: Eurostar suspended due to cold weather


text: Talk:Eurostar suspended due to cold weather


text:
User talk:Harald~enwikinews

Welcome
Brian McNeil / talk 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Harald~enwikinews


text:
Talk:Second day of snow in UK, disruption continues

Picture?
There must be a ton of pictures of the snow in the UK, perhaps find one to go in this article? --James Pain (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

OR
"At 15:13 GMT, one Wikinews contributor in West Lothian described the conditions there as 'white-out', although later conditions were reported to have improved." This is OR, isn't it? Notes on the talk page are needed. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was from someone in IRC(#wikinews) on the date the article was started, at around the time shown,

and inference from previous information given as to the location of that person. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Eurostar suspended due to cold weather

Should Richard Brown resign?
Why he is not a scumbag politico or an MEP to boot !


text:
User talk:Rmb009

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  14:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rmb009


text:
User talk:Facts707

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Facts707


text:
User talk:Leavesleytony

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  14:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leavesleytony


text:
User talk:Forrest~enwikinews

Welcome
James Pain (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Forrest. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Forrest~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 23:17, 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) 06:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Forrest~enwikinews


text:
Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri dies

December 20, 2009

Iranian cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri died yesterday. Montazeri had been a key leader in the 1979 Iranian revolution and at one time was expected to succeed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as the Supreme Leader of Iran, until he fell out with Khomeini. In 1987 Montazeri had advocated for the legalisation of political parties. He had also criticsed the post-revolution regime for its brutality and the mass execution of political prisoners in 1988.

After the disputed 2009 Iranian presidential election, Montazeri supported the opposition and declared the result of the election fraudulent.

Montazeri's grandson said that he had died peacefully in his sleep. In Najafabad, the cleric's hometown, shops were closed and the streets full of mourners.

The Times and other news agencies reported that the Iranian authorities were concerned that the burial, due to start at 09.00 local time tomorrow in Qom, would be a focus for more opposition protests against the Iranian government. Supporters of Montazeri were reportedly already arriving in Tehran, and ParlemanNews reports that thousands of people would be attending the funeral.

The Telegraph reported that news of Montazeri's death had sparked protests by students even before the burial, who filled university campuses chanting pro-reform slogans.

Related news

 * Wikinews coverage of Iran's 2009 presidential election


text:
User talk:PROUST2009

Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:PROUST2009


text:
Comments:NASA flyby of Saturn moon Titan produces first image of liquid on another world

ALIENS!!!

MileStone
I think it is one milestone for our inventors. so finding water samples on the saturn moon will be the one good step for future discoveries. congrats guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devender.Padi (talk • contribs) 10:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


text: Talk:Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri dies


text:
User talk:Howiesbowen~enwikinews

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  18:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Howiesbowen~enwikinews


text:
Rage Against The Machine top UK singles chart

December 20, 2009

Rock band Rage Against The Machine have beaten Joe McElderry to become the UK's official Christmas number one, following one of the biggest battles in the history of the UK Singles Chart. Their song Killing in the Name pushed the X Factor winner's new single The Climb into second place.

A Facebook campaign backing the American band aimed to stop an X Factor winner reaching the Christmas number one spot once again. Artists from the TV talent show, owned by music mogul Simon Cowell, have taken the festive top spot for four years in a row. The group attracted over 900,000 members and widespread press attention, after it was started by Jon and Tracy Morter.

"Are you getting fed up about the possibility of ANOTHER X-Factor Christmas No.1? ...us too...so we're going to do something about it!," they said on the group's Facebook page. They decided to back "Killing In The Name", first released in 1992.

Cowell had previously branded the campaign "cynical", but on Saturday contacted the Morters to congratulate them on making a "very exciting race for the Christmas number one". The campaign has also raised over £69,000 for homeless charity Shelter.

Rage Against The Machine guitarist Tom Morello had backed the campaign on Twitter. He announced that the band would play a free victory gig in the UK if they reached number one.

The result was announced on BBC Radio 1's chart show this evening by Scott Mills. McElderry had been due to appear on the show, but did not arrive.