text:
User talk:Ishita123456789

-- 06:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ishita123456789


text:
Thread:Comments:Greek workers strike over austerity measures/Comments from feedback form - "The fact that white people in ..."

The fact that white people in rich countries are grossly overpaid remains. They donot deserve even half of what they are being paid while the job that they do can be done in a quarter of its price in countries which they pillaged 50 years ago

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


text:
User talk:Hmaglione10

-- 07:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hmaglione10


text:
User talk:Bobkow2010

-- 07:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bobkow2010


text:
User talk:Sudev123

-- 07:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sudev123


text:
User talk:Px-2500-px

-- 07:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Px-2500-px


text:
User talk:Vanalles

-- 07:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vanalles


text:
User talk:Talmeez~enwikinews

-- 07:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Talmeez. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Talmeez~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 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Talmeez~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Grr1967

-- 08:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Grr1967


text:
User talk:Subzero Ray

-- 08:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Subzero Ray


text:
User talk:0473Marcel

-- 08:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:0473Marcel


text:
User talk:Cwbysinger

-- 08:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cwbysinger


text:
User talk:Hgw007

-- 08:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hgw007


text:
User talk:Sinic Electronics

-- 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sinic Electronics


text:
User talk:Mountaintune

-- 08:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mountaintune


text:
User talk:DannySibon

-- 08:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DannySibon


text:
User talk:Psp btpnswk

-- 09:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Psp btpnswk


text:
User talk:איתמר ק.

-- 09:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:איתמר ק.


text:
User talk:Kuba Fober

-- 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kuba Fober


text:
Template:NOINDEX/doc

This template adds the  __NOINDEX__  magic word, which may remove the page from some search engines and automatically categorizes pages in Category:Noindexed pages.

Usage
Please use this instead of __NOINDEX__ for tracking purposes.

for example add:

title: Template:NOINDEX/doc


text:
User talk:Marc Mongenet

-- 10:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marc Mongenet


text:
User talk:Winstonhyypia

-- 10:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Winstonhyypia


text:
User talk:Mechiy98

-- 11:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mechiy98


text:
User talk:Martina Pasquariello

-- 11:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Martina Pasquariello


text:
User talk:Zaidalbasman

-- 11:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zaidalbasman


text:
User talk:Glennobrien

-- 11:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Glennobrien


text:
User talk:Dhlanger

-- 11:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dhlanger


text:
User talk:Tch199613

-- 11:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tch199613


text:
User talk:Aronfannar

-- 11:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aronfannar


text:
User talk:Erwinski

-- 11:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Erwinski


text:
Thread:Comments:Debris narrowly misses International Space Station/where does all this debris come from?/reply (2)

"Space debris" usually refers to man-made stuff, anything from defunct satellites to flecks of paint. There are natural things like micrometeorites around as well. The big problem is the more pieces of debris you have, the more collisions are likely to occur, and those collisions produce yet more debris.


text:
User talk:Vucicdr

-- 12:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vucicdr


text:
User talk:Viva Infomedia

-- 12:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Viva Infomedia


text:
User talk:Jhinsman

-- 12:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jhinsman


text:
User talk:Sybren49

-- 12:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sybren49


text:
User talk:Anweasha Sen

-- 12:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anweasha Sen


text:
User talk:Ccdp

-- 13:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ccdp


text:
User talk:Stoker91

-- 13:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Stoker91


text:
User talk:Jackofboca

-- 13:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jackofboca


text:
User talk:Spiderlouis

-- 13:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Spiderlouis


text:
User talk:Dassie Rat

-- 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dassie Rat


text:
User talk:Cuoremesagnese

-- 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cuoremesagnese


text:
User:Microchip08/BBC

June 29, 2011

X xxxxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx (XXX), xxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xx xx xx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xx Xxxxx. Xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx XXXx (X,XXXxx) xx xxx xxxxxxxx. Xxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxx xxxxx xx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xx xx XXXX XXX.

Xxx xxxx xxx xx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxx x xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxx XXX. Xxx XX xxxxx xxxxxx'x (Xxxx) Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx, xxxx xx xxx xxx xxxxxxx x xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxx xx xxx xxxxxxx. Xx xxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxx xxx xx xxx xx xxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx, xx xxxxx.

"Xx xxx'x xxxx xxxx xx xxx. Xx xxxxx'x xxxx xx XX; xx'x xxxx xxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxx xx 'xxxxxxx'," xx xxxx xxxxxxxxx. Xxx Xxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx: "X xxxxxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxxxx 'xxxxx xxxxx' xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxx. Xxx xxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx Xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx."

Xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxx xxxx xx xxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx, xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx xxx xx xxxx xx "xxxxxxxxx" xx xx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx. Xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxxx, xxx xxxx xxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxx xx xxx XXX. Xxx = X Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx XX% xx xxx xxxxxxx xx Xxxxx'x xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxxx, xxxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxxxxx: xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx, xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxx xxxxxx. Xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxx xx xx xx XXxx (xxxx xxxxxx) xx xxxx, xxx xxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx.

Xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx
Xxxx xxxxxxxxx x xxx xxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxx xxx x xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxx xxx xxxx. Xxxxxxxx, xxx xxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxx xx xxx xxx xx x xxxxx xx xxxx, xxx xxxx xxxxx xxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxx x xxxxxxxxx. "Xx'xx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx Xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxx xx xx xxx xxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx xx xx xxxxxxxxxx," Xx Xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxx.

"Xxxxx, xx xxxxx xx x xxxxxx xx xxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxx xx xxx xx xx xxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxxxx xxxxxx. Xx'xx xxxxxxx xxxx Xxxxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx xx xxx xx xxxx xx x xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx, xx xx xx xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xx xxxxxxx xxxxxx - xx'xx xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xx xxxx."

Xxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxx xx xx xxxxxxxx xx XXXX.

Xxx XXX xx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx xx xxxx XXXxx xxxxxxxx. Xx xxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xx xxxx xx xxxxx xx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxxx xx xxx xxx xx xxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx xx xxxx xx xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx. Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxx xxx xxxx xx xxxx xx xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xx xxxxxx xx xxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxx xx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx xxx xx xxxxxxx xx xxx xxxxxx xx xxxxxxxxxx.

Xxx xxxxxxx xx x $XXXxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxx XXXx (XXXxx) xxxxx xxx Xxxxx xxxxx XXXX. Xxxx xxxxxxxx xxx xxxxxxxx - xxx XX, Xxxxxx, Xxxxx, Xxxxxx xxx Xxxxxx (XX xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx).

title: User:Microchip08/BBC


text:
User talk:Tenmagawa

-- 14:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tenmagawa


text:
User talk:Ojaramillo

-- 14:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ojaramillo


text:
User talk:Chocolait5

-- 14:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chocolait5


text:
User talk:Collegetribune

-- 14:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Collegetribune


text:
User talk:Niteshsaha14

-- 14:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Niteshsaha14


text:
User talk:Archita1978

-- 15:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Archita1978


text:
User talk:Heyyyitsjess

-- 15:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Heyyyitsjess


text:
Thread:Comments:Greek workers strike over austerity measures/Comments from feedback form - "The fact that white people in ..."/reply

Well it's hard to justify higher pay when all you do is ride camels and chuck spears and babble incoherently all day. All that civilizing influence... wasted. :( 24.159.22.26 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Egemen2

-- 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Egemen2


text:
User talk:DlynZ

-- 16:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DlynZ


text:
User talk:Samir Kenan

-- 16:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Samir Kenan


text: Comments:Rebecca Black's Music Video "Friday" gets taken off youtube


text:
Thread:Comments:Rebecca Black's Music Video "Friday" gets taken off youtube/Comments from feedback form - "drivin cruisin fast lane switc..."

drivin cruisin fast lane switchin lane with a car by my side —86.96.229.86 (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Akkusulthan

-- 16:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Akkusulthan


text:
User talk:Gabi0912

-- 16:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gabi0912


text:
User talk:Darrenhenn

-- 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Darrenhenn


text:
User talk:Chrisjterrell

-- 16:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chrisjterrell


text:
User talk:Govinandan

-- 16:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Govinandan


text:
User talk:Barkinnn

-- 17:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Barkinnn


text:
Thread:Comments:Greek workers strike over austerity measures/Comments from feedback form - "The fact that white people in ..."/reply (2)

Sigh. Racism.


text:
Thread:Comments:Greek workers strike over austerity measures/Comments from feedback form - "The fact that white people in ..."/reply (3)

More racism. Double sigh.


text:
Thread:Comments:Prohibition Party holds convention; nominates Jack Fellure for U.S. President/US Politics/reply (7)

If people are forced to vote, I'm running for President on a single-issue platform: Eliminate forced voting. That'll get me, what, fifty percent of the vote? 24.159.22.26 (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Vive le c..

-- 17:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vive le c..


text:
User talk:Hrishikesh sumant kulkarni

-- 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hrishikesh sumant kulkarni


text:
User talk:Kompol1989

-- 18:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kompol1989


text:
User talk:Chim98

-- 18:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chim98


text:
User talk:Diego bruno

-- 18:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Diego bruno


text:
User talk:Kiiller

-- 18:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kiiller


text:
User talk:Dlive10

-- 19:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dlive10


text:
Talk:Philippine Foreign Secretary Del Rosario to visit China amid South China Sea territorial dispute

found 1 misspelled word
Please temporarily unprotect this news article and correct the misspelled word Phillipine. Thanks in advance. Zollerriia (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ And thanks for catching the error. :) — Mike moral  ♪♫  07:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

To the reviewer
This article erroneously stated that the U.S. supported the Philippines' territorial rights to the Spartly Islands. However, Secretary Clinton stated that the U.S. remains neutral. Furthermore, the article was wrong to connect the drills with the dispute, see : "Regional Commander Juancho Sabban says the drills are held annually under a defense agreement between the two countries and have nothing to do with the conflict in the Spratly Islands." There may be more errors in the article that I may not have caught, so I ask the reviewer to be very careful in checking the facts.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1252534 [Failed]

 * The source for that statement is McGeown's BBC article. Ragettho (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no it isn't. The US has made a claim of use of force, but I see absolutely no sign force was actually used. I notice you actually changed the facts to from Wikienws saying force was used to the US saying force was used, which is now accurate. In fact, you will find China has claimed force will not be used. I would suggest the interests of neutrality dictate this claim is also placed in the article. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I had this debate earlier when I submitted a Wiki short with all evidence stated a monitor felt the sources quoted had become older than 3 days by that time, so we let the template I suggested expire in time. Notwithstanding the AAP article "Manila: US obliged to defend Filipinos in Spratlys" By JIM GOMEZ, Associated Press Jim Gomez, Associated Press– Wed Jun 22, 9:05 pm ET. States clearly ~ "Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosari" claimed USA Officials had made clear Washington would respond if Filipino forces are attacked in the South China Sea. Furthermore that "As a strategic ally, the United States honors our Mutual Defense Treaty with the Philippines," as quoted in this AAP report quoting Alan Holst, acting public affairs officer at the embassy. Although he would not debate the possible scenarions in which such response would be forthcoming from USA.

AAP then describes the subject USA/Philippines 'defense treaty'in force since 1952, which defins "an attack" as an armed assault on "the metropolitan territory of the parties" or their "armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific." The South China Sea is in the Pacific by definition. May I suggest you look at my Template with some 17 valuable recent sources of the whole facts emerging right now, and suggesting it is all enough trouble in these matters to ignite a WW III even, Thus I thoroughly agree User Blood Red Sandman's point great care with the article is necessary.--Robbygay (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors may choose to use the sources I stated as secveral prove China has used force against the Philippines recently. EG:- On the same case this press reports that the Philippines claims China has intruded 6 times in Manila-claimed teritories near the Spratlys since February. Among the most serious was a reported firing by a Chinese navy vessel on Feb. 25 to scare away Filipino fishermen from the Jackson Atoll.[4]as reported on the Internet Yahoo News. [5][6][7][8]

I have evidenced Chinese duplicity where they say one day "we will not use force to settle disputes.....or extend territories" in other press last week they stated they "will use military options' to defend Chinese National borders or words to that effect. as they have Unilaterally declared the entire area is Sovereignty of China, Ignoring Potsdam and Cairo WW II declarations, the surender of them by the Japanese to China Nationalo and British trustees for the Convention agreement of China, USA,Britain and Russia concurrence, to declare now Chinese Sovereignty, means loast weeks threat to use force to defend China alao applies to the _Paracells, Spratlys and all South Chine Sea inside their declared "U" shaped Curve see Wikipedia line delineations for proof as I stated.--Robbygay (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Thinking long and hard overnight I have come to the conclusion, probably the best way for you to correct this is to add a final paragraph to stress the differences in threat and diplomatic speak understanding of all the players. China has set it's flag on the disputed underwater shoal as pictured in some press, hence it is declared their sovereignty, so when bbc 21st June 2011 quotes the Chinese English Language daily 'The Global Times' warning "China will take whatever measures necessary" 'including military action, to protect its interests in the South China Sea' that meass what it says "will use force" your last paragraph "will not use force to settle disputes" meaning ownership disputes. That is not meaning "will not use force to retain" claimed & flag bearing islands or underwater banks we own.

For your interest the exact words of BBC 21/6/11 state:- "A Chinese flag and a satellite dish are prominently displayed in a structure built by China in one of the islands in the Spratly Islands. China's state-controlled media are warning Vietnam that Beijing will "take whatever measures necessary," including military action, to protect its interests in the South China Sea. The Global Times newspaper, in an editorial Tuesday, issued Beijing's sternest public warning yet to Vietnam as regional tensions rise over conflicting maritime claims to territories thought to be rich in oil and natural gas deposits"

USA and its 1952 to date effective defence treaty with Philipines means "they will use force if philipines assets in that sea are attacked, and Clinton has stated South China Seas are a matter if their interests, that means they will use force in such circumstances, yet she also stated USA will remain neutral in this dispute, meaning they can be a useful neutral arbitrator for diplomatic and cases at any official arbitration venues/courts or multilateral/bilateral event. She does not say USA is neutral if China unilaterally attacks or uses force against others in this Sea that is a core interest of USA and international navigation.--Robbygay (talk) 23:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1254092 [Passed]
There is only a single source (GMA) for the central news event, Rosario's plan to visit China July 7–9.

I'm looking for a second source, but so far I've only found a local Philippines source that is obviously not independent of GMA's coverage. --Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Ah! Found one.  (AFP)  --Pi zero (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me, consideering the danger and flash point this whole story can cause if erred reports, or unnecessary agrevation be caused right now, they are in a diplomatic situation, if diplomacy works as hoped, all the better for us and the World. I will leave the above Template I had earlier submitted as a Short News, hoping someone better than I could sort a best way to do that and when to state what and where. I took user Blood Red Sandman point above very seriously and I think it is wise, as he said a dangerous subject to be wrong with, sadly he has changed that to argue China has not threatened to use force. He appears to mis the point entirely:- China has threatened to use force to "defend it's teritories", but not to "settle disputes" or "expand borders". The fact is they unilaterally expanded their border to the "U" curve on Wikipedia map. They have not submitted to UN or UNCLOS as disputing anyone, that are satisfied it is their border sovereignty which they have said the will use force to defend.

Likewise USA says they are neutral in the "disputes" on the table at this time, and they offer arbitration in that neutral phase. They will not attack China to settle diusputes either. But they do not agree this as China Sovereignty, and that Philippines 1951 defence agreement that they do admit requires them to "help Philippines if China attacks Philippines in the Pacific" as this is. So nothing is settled, The scheduled meeting is good news, we hope settlements can be bilaterally achieved as China ardently rules out multilateral agreements or interference, bilateral their only agreed solution. We all need hope something sorts out soon or war risk is on the rise, costing all nations big spending in this economic tough times when reduction ought to be targetted. Still good to pass the story even this milodly lopsided reporting,gnoring the China 21st June threat in their "The Global Times Daily" as referred to by BBC, AFP, and dozens of re4liable media.--Robbygay (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


text:
Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US

June 30, 2011 A report issued Wednesday by the (CASA) at  finds  the top  problem in the United States is teen, including  the use of  , , ,  and other.

According to the study's authors, "The study looks at how American culture increases the risk that teens will use addictive substances and how the messages sent by adults, and glamorized by the tobacco and alcohol industries and the media, normalize substance use and undermine the health and futures of our teens."

CASA found that 90% of adults who have  started using substances before the age of 18. In comparison, only 4% of Americans who abuse as adults started using these drugs when 21 or older.

Further, the consumption of these substances by American teens is rising. Currently almost half of American high school students smoke, drink alcohol or use other drugs, according to the study, and 1 in 5 meet the. Seventy-five percent of all high school students have used addictive substances including tobacco, alcohol, marijuana or cocaine at some point. Over 65% have used more than one.

The researchers found social factors  related to the risk of American teens use of addictive substances included parental, community and school  acceptance of these substances and the positive media portrayals of drug use as harmless, fun and attractive. Advertising of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes also contributes to the positive image of drug use.

The researchers used online surveys filled out by 1,000 high school students, 1,000 parents of high school students, 500 educators, as well as information from five focus groups and reviews of 2,000 scientific articles and reports, according to.

"Addiction is a disease that in most cases begins in adolescence, so preventing or delaying teens from using alcohol, tobacco or other drugs for as long as possible is crucial to their health and safety," said Susan Foster, CASA's vice president in a news release. "We rightfully worry about other teen health problems like, or , but we turn a blind eye to a more common and deadly epidemic that we can in fact prevent."

The study's authors pointed out that the teenage  brain is not fully developed and the use of drugs during the teenage years hampers further development of the  brain, impairs judgment and increases the risk of addiction as an adult. Heavy substance abuse harms the developing brain far more than the already developed adult brain. They concluded their data shows that  is the critical age  period for the onset of substance abuse and its repercussions.


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2011/June

new category on royals
I'd like to propose that Wikinews have a category for royalty. We've written a lot of articles on royalty already, especially the British royal family, and I think that organizing them into one category would be useful. Does anyone agree, and if so, how would this be implemented? Ragettho (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If we can list at least 5 articles on that, then just create a Category:Royal page and get the pages tagged. Thanks for the idea. --Gryllida 03:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I think Category:Royalty might work better. I'll get started on that soon. Ragettho (talk) 04:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait... we only need five articles? i.e. I don't have to find every article written about royalty and request that the category be added? Ragettho (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While it's recommended, it's not necessary for category to be created - we can create it like this first, and then tag other articles. Gryllida 04:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness... I was ready to quit when I found hundreds of search results to sort through. :/ Ragettho (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

 * A few thoughts.
 * You'll want a category name that's very lucid — both in that one understands what it is when one sees it, and in that one naturally thinks of that name when considering adding an article to some such category. For example, when we recently created a category about the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross and Red Crescent), we finally decided to call it Category:Red Cross and Red Crescent, because if you're looking to enter a category in HotCat, you don't want to go hunting for it under "I".
 * A really good category should be one that naturally gets added to. If somebody writes an article, and there's nobody around who's specifically looking out to populate this category, it should just naturally occur to people to add the article to that category.  You can't expect people to carry around a database of all possible categories, and check each article to see if it should belong to any of them.  This is why, for example, I'm uncomfortable about our Category:Targeted killing; I don't think it even occurs to people that they might want to add an article to it.
 * When you do create a category, use template topic cat.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ... did I pick a bad name for the category? I'm not quite sure what your implying here. I'll use the template you recommended. Ragettho (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. Just basic principles.  I think Category:Royalty is a good choice for the purpose.

 * I now realize I left out one basic principle. Every topic category should be a descendant of one of the major topic categories — the major children of Category:News articles by section, like Category:Politics and conflicts and Category:Culture and entertainment.  I'm guessing Category:Royalty is "culture"; I guess I'll HotCat that now.  --Pi zero (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Thanks for the help you've given so far. Just another thought: the monarch in some cases is the head of government, so perhaps Category:Politics and conflicts is appropriate here as well?Ragettho (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The way we use the hierarchy, one doesn't make topic cat A under topic cat B unless all aritcles in A should go in B. This is why I hesitated in choosing a parent category.  Category:Royalty becomes, in effect, a different category if one puts it under Category:Culture and entertainment than if one put it under Category:Politics and conflicts, or again under both.  I'm still not 100% sure I chose correctly.  Is it true that every article on royalty should also be listed under culture?  Certainly some articles on royalty should also be listed under politics; is it possible, at least in principle, that some of them shouldn't be listed under politics?  --Pi zero (talk) 05:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think that every article on royalty could be listed under culture. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, for example, doesn't strike me as a particularly cultural icon. However, if we must pick a category, it could be argued that royalty is always a part of politics, depending on how one defines politics. I define politics to be the activities we engage in to determine who has power, and although many monarchies today are ceremonial in nature, they still play a big role in that allocation of power. Ragettho (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, some monarchs are pretty much purely political creatures, in context. As for whether all royalty is political, another way to look at it is that even in countries where royalty have no governmental power at all, their doings can still have political consequences.  Okay, let's try it and see if it works.  --Pi zero (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

first articles
We may create a "first article" category, where people would put their first article once it passes a basic review (that isn't biased and copyright violation, but may fail the style guide). Then put that at the bottom of main page. They would feel easier at the start and address the issues in next articles. This is in no way a final proposal and I'm expecting potential modifications/feedback responses. --Gryllida 03:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll skip the familiar objections, for now; they can be reiterated later if necessary. (They're potent, it's just that they'd drown out what's new here).

 * The thing is, I don't think the style guide stuff —that doesn't bear on other criteria— is the major obstacle this seems to imply. An article that really doesn't have anything wrong with it except some style details is easy enough to fix up — and people can even ask for help with it.  Helping them do the right thing seems like a more directly assault on the problem to me — and of course it's what I'm working on.  (To a person with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.)  See below.  --Pi zero (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wizard update
I've added two things to the list of steps suggested to me by Brianmc, both at the front: before finding sources, choose a news event; and before even that, understand that writing is an iterative cooperative process between author and reviewer. I've tried to communicate that on the first panel, with both text (that many will skip) and a colorful picture that grabs the eye. I've got about two panels to go — which means (because this is proving direly challenging) I hope to finish before the end of June.

That's only the low-tech version of the wizard, that it should degrade to gracefully without javascriipt. I really want a true wizard where you fill in dialog boxes as you go, and information accumulates, and it helps with deploying what you've entered. Which probably means a very cleverly chosen simple-and-general javascript tool of some sort, which I'm contemplating while working on the non-js panels. --Pi zero (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Huh direction

-- 19:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Huh direction


text:
User talk:Vicentehelano

-- 19:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vicentehelano


text:
User talk:Mnsu

-- 20:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mnsu


text:
User talk:Gouttegd

-- 20:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gouttegd


text:
User talk:Srinivasashwin

-- 20:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Srinivasashwin


text: Comments:US Supreme Court rules video games are protected speech


text:
User talk:Spattrin040

-- 20:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Spattrin040


text:
User talk:Géodigital

-- 20:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Géodigital


text: File:Google plus one.jpg

title: File:Google plus one.jpg


text: User talk:Northamerica1000

title: User talk:Northamerica1000


text:
User talk:Fouzzy

-- 20:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fouzzy


text:
User talk:Bartek.dabek

-- 20:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bartek.dabek


text:
User talk:George Palaiologos

-- 20:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:George Palaiologos


text:
User talk:Jaggerpetro

-- 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jaggerpetro


text:
Talk:Google introduces the '+1' button

Hmm
I am thoroughly concerned about the accuracy of the content in this article. I have marked it for an additional review. theMONO 03:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, which part(s) are you concerned about?--William S. Saturn (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm more of the option that it's effectively a newsvertisment. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's right; I tried to present the event neutrally, and wouldn't think it's not newsworthy - is it not? --Gryllida 08:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Google introduces the '+1' button


text: Comments:Google introduces the '+1' button


text:
User talk:Alpincat

-- 21:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alpincat


text:
User talk:Andy Gaßner

-- 21:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andy Gaßner


text:
User talk:Argentochilensis

-- 21:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Argentochilensis


text:
User talk:Hammond59

-- 21:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hammond59


text:
Category:Russian Federal Assembly

ru:Категория:Федеральное собрание Российской Федерации

title: Category:Russian Federal Assembly


text: Category:Russian State Duma

title: Category:Russian State Duma


text:
Category:Russian Federation Council

{{Topic cat }}
 * the=yes
 * no comma=yes
 * pipe=Federation Council
 * intro=({{w|Russian language|Russian}}: Сове́т Федера́ции}, the upper house of the Federal Assembly of Russia
 * image=Meeting of the Federation Council (2018-12-11).jpg
 * imagecaption=Council meeting in 2018
 * emblem=Emblem of the Federation Council of Russia.png
 * coat=Emblem of the Federation Council (Russian).svg
 * sisterprojects=yes
 * wikidata=Q186473
 * wikipedia=Federation Council (Russia)
 * commons=Category:Federation Council

title: Category:Russian Federation Council


text:
User talk:Vixiithoox

-- 22:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vixiithoox


text:
User talk:CW Crimmins Bradley

-- 22:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:CW Crimmins Bradley


text:
User talk:বিল্লাল হোসেন

-- 23:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:বিল্লাল হোসেন


text:
User talk:AngBent

-- 23:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AngBent


text:
User talk:HappycamperYB

-- 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:HappycamperYB


text:
User talk:Mr.abdellaoui.issam

-- 23:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mr.abdellaoui.issam


text:
Thread:Comments:US Supreme Court rules video games are protected speech/They did something right?

They did something right? Holy heck, Parents should be able to parent their kids, not the government.


text:
User talk:Soursob

-- 23:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Soursob


text:
User talk:ضفيري محمد عزالدين

-- 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ضفيري محمد عزالدين


text: Comments:Dark matter galaxy discovered

title: Comments:Dark matter galaxy discovered


text:
Thread:Comments:Dark matter galaxy discovered/Comments from feedback form - "FAKE."

FAKE. —163.251.160.3 (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Pbaghdadlian

-- 23:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pbaghdadlian


text:
User talk:Hugo SALINAS GONZÁLEZ

-- 00:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hugo SALINAS GONZÁLEZ


text:
User talk:SoccerMom1989

-- 00:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:SoccerMom1989


text:
User talk:The Cat Igniting Witch of the North

-- 00:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


text: User:The Cat Igniting Witch of the North


text:
User talk:Nankang508

-- 00:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nankang508


text:
User talk:Adepetris

-- 01:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Adepetris


text:
User talk:FrancoisDeluxe

-- 01:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:FrancoisDeluxe


text:
User talk:Hammurabibrazil

-- 01:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hammurabibrazil


text:
User talk:Sadiqkalroo

-- 02:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sadiqkalroo


text:
User talk:Bagelover

-- 03:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bagelover


text:
User talk:PaulKreder

-- 03:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PaulKreder


text:
User talk:Shabi117

-- 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shabi117


text:
User talk:Chavanbm

-- 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chavanbm


text:
User talk:Ieashu

-- 04:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ieashu


text:
User talk:Asparagus10

-- 04:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Asparagus10


text:
User talk:Macoi21

-- 04:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Macoi21


text:
User talk:Klynmondal

-- 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Klynmondal


text:
User talk:Gregrank

-- 04:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gregrank


text:
User talk:Фуругельм

-- 05:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Фуругельм


text:
User talk:LookingforMorals1

-- 05:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:LookingforMorals1


text:
User talk:Histriocito

-- 05:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Histriocito


text:
User talk:Greendragon25

-- 06:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Greendragon25


text:
User talk:Dilipmeena007

-- 06:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dilipmeena007


text:
User talk:Jugal 12

-- 06:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jugal 12


text:
User talk:Folklore777

-- 06:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Folklore777


text:
User talk:Musiclover03

-- 06:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Musiclover03


text:
User talk:Roy Emanuel

-- 06:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Roy Emanuel


text:
User talk:Priti06

-- 06:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Priti06


text:
User talk:Hnusazeig

-- 06:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hnusazeig


text:
User talk:Rafmarham

-- 06:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rafmarham


text:
User talk:Keltyb847

-- 06:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Keltyb847


text:
User talk:Kavithachikkam

-- 06:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kavithachikkam


text:
User talk:Misxz zhell

-- 06:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Misxz zhell


text:
User talk:Kolay91

-- 07:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kolay91


text:
User talk:Lence.nasev

-- 07:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lence.nasev


text:
User talk:Marijasum

-- 07:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marijasum


text:
User talk:小渕健太郎

-- 07:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:小渕健太郎


text:
User talk:Kkbairi

-- 07:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kkbairi


text:
User talk:Tango.fruit

-- 07:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tango.fruit


text:
User talk:ADNAN MIR

-- 08:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ADNAN MIR


text:
User talk:Lebonfred

-- 08:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lebonfred


text:
User talk:Hawaratschi

-- 08:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hawaratschi


text:
User talk:FilthyGoth

-- 08:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:FilthyGoth


text:
User talk:Germanfcb

-- 08:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Germanfcb


text:
User talk:Krupnik2000

-- 08:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Krupnik2000


text:
User talk:Chandresh iit

-- 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chandresh iit


text:
User talk:Taxijedi

-- 09:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Taxijedi


text:
User talk:Bouncingnewsgreen

-- 09:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bouncingnewsgreen


text:
User talk:MrThomas369

-- 09:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MrThomas369


text:
User talk:Mastermind361

-- 09:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mastermind361


text:
User talk:Citizen~enwikinews

-- 09:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Welcome! -Gryllida 10:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Citizen. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Citizen~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 23:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Citizen~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Dbiela8293

-- 10:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dbiela8293


text:
Thread:Comments:Debris narrowly misses International Space Station/where does all this debris come from?/reply (3)

I would think the majority is human garbage from the silly space program. While our Oceans are dying we piss away our futures through funding cronies of past administrations--- One good possibility is that the garbage may shade us from the sun and cool the planet-sort of a garbage sunscreen?


text:
User talk:Carsu12

-- 10:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Carsu12


text:
User talk:Sc12739

-- 11:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sc12739


text:
User talk:Артур Коровкин

-- 11:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Артур Коровкин


text:
User talk:Spinner76

-- 11:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Spinner76


text: Comments:Philippine Foreign Secretary Del Rosario to visit China amid South China Sea territorial dispute


text:
Thread:Comments:Philippines and U.S. hold naval drills in South China Sea amid territorial dispute/Comments from feedback form - "hello,im from philippines the ..."

hello,im from philippines the tension spratlys is increasing if a war broke up the US mus t help philippines —121.54.92.136 (talk) 11:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Finafah

-- 12:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Finafah


text:
User talk:Daniel1smith

-- 12:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Daniel1smith


text:
User talk:Sree0151

-- 12:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sree0151


text:
User talk:Thusky3

-- 12:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thusky3


text:
User talk:V24242v

-- 13:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:V24242v


text:
User talk:Skykratzer

-- 13:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Skykratzer


text:
User talk:Asdpazto

-- 13:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Asdpazto


text:
User talk:Serginhosabetudo

-- 13:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Serginhosabetudo


text:
User talk:Maverick 001200

-- 13:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maverick 001200


text:
User talk:Techboy20

-- 14:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Techboy20


text:
User talk:Farshid66

-- 14:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Farshid66


text:
User talk:AnWe

-- 14:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AnWe


text:
User talk:Mongkhonvanit

-- 14:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mongkhonvanit


text:
User talk:Johnwcowan

-- 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Johnwcowan


text:
User talk:Arshadhussain175

-- 14:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arshadhussain175


text:
User talk:Mprawin2010

-- 14:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mprawin2010


text:
User talk:Vestnik-64

-- 15:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vestnik-64


text:
User talk:Quandry18

-- 15:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Quandry18


text:
User talk:Geri Heath

-- 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Geri Heath


text:
User talk:Deviprasad jena

-- 15:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deviprasad jena


text:
User talk:Sanjay sahani~enwikinews

-- 15:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Sanjay sahani. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Sanjay sahani~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 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Sanjay sahani~enwikinews


text:
Thread:Comments:Google introduces the '+1' button/Comments from feedback form - "POOR WORK"

POOR WORK


text:
User talk:Baijinho

-- 16:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Baijinho


text:
User talk:Yorktownbiz

-- 16:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yorktownbiz


text:
User talk:Lichtspiel

-- 16:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lichtspiel


text: Comments:Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence


text:
User talk:Brad LP

-- 16:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Brad LP


text:
User talk:Simplydenwi

-- 16:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Simplydenwi


text:
User talk:Iwfx

-- 16:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Iwfx


text:
User talk:Don't say another word

Welcome to my talk page!!

EDIT: This page is protected? WTF??

title: User talk:Don't say another word


text:
User talk:BeuSisters

-- 17:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:BeuSisters


text:
User talk:Vivek.srinivas90

-- 17:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vivek.srinivas90


text:
User talk:Panterone

-- 17:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Panterone


text:
User talk:Sahani sanjay

-- 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sahani sanjay


text:
User talk:Nyangeso

-- 18:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nyangeso


text:
User talk:Nitban

-- 18:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nitban


text:
User:Vicsar

This page is a soft redirect.

The page you are looking for can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vicsar

title: User:Vicsar


text:
User talk:Owais7

-- 18:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Owais7


text:
User talk:Prabhuvardhan

-- 18:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Prabhuvardhan


text:
User talk:Pontlarge

-- 18:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pontlarge


text:
User talk:Dambler

-- 18:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dambler


text:
Thread:Comments:US Supreme Court rules video games are protected speech/Comments from feedback form - "Good article and judiciously p..."

Good article and judiciously pruned for the most important information. I cannot stop giggling at the picture of Scalia, though.


text:
User talk:SarahStierch

-- 18:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of context quote
Sarah,

I've noted your concerns, and raised them on the article's talk page - with what I feel is a more appropriate quote. Whether there's a reasonable reworking will depend on second opinions on this. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Because of our "24 hr window" for substantive changes, I've edited in what I believe better-reflects your quoted blog post. I need another independent editor to sight those changes, and hope someone will do so in the very near future.
 * On a related note, I didn't get along to McEwan hall today, for Irina Bokova getting her Doctor Honoris Causa; as I understand it, MGS have informed her they're ready to work with WM-UK. So, if you know any Wikimedians with an interest in Scottish culture (excluding deep-fried Mars bars), please point them in my direction. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Sarah,

Thank you for your message. I see that your concerns have been addressed. Rest assured that I take journalistic integrity seriously, and that I will be reviewing this incident along with other Wikinewsies. I hope that you were able to resolve the issue with your colleagues.

All the best, Ragettho (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Helping Wikipedians transition
Hi Sarah,

We've made something of an effort with For Wikipedians to try and cover the most-common differences from Wikipedia, but could always do with someone more-familiar with Wikipedia picking through this.

Laura Hale just got her first Wikinews article published, so I invited her to write about the experience on the Editors' blog; that's probably worth reading over.

Any advice at-all on making our policy documents more accessible would be welcomed, the assumption that the same Manual of Style as-used on Wikipedia applies here drives the regulars up the wall. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 03:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Brian. I actually don't think the policies are as complex as Wikipedias, but, I also had assistance from Tom Morris when I wrote my first article, and honestly, having my "hand held" was more valuable than sitting around and reading policies :) Just having Tom help me with my first article and then further experiences after that (well, today, so far) really was awesome. When I'm done with school (aghh!!! in May, thank god) I do hope that I'll be able to take my own personal experience with Wikinews further. It'd be cool to develop some "Wikinews news-a-thons" of sorts, and do some collaborative reporting with people (offline and then taking it online). Wikinews is the third sister project I've actually liked participating in (no offense to Wikisource, but, that one will hasn't taken off for me despite contributing a bit), so let me get comfortable and we'll see what I can help with =)

Wow, I just babbled my brains out there. Sorry for this spacey message...I'm not feeling to well today! SarahStierch (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

 * What sort of assistance did Tom Morris provide? --Pi zero (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He inspired me to participate! He talked about how if anyone had interest in Wikinews (on the gender gap list) that we should talk to him. I started drafting the Wikimania article and told him about it via email and he made some edits, let me know about sources and how it's sort of "self reporting" because it's a Wikimedian writing about Wikimedia. He made me feel welcome, didn't make me feel like crap about any mistakes I made, etc. It's simple things like that, that help. Sarah (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. We were most interested also in LauraHale's account of her positive first experience at Wikinews, observing the things about it that were in stark contrast to negative accounts given by some Wikipedians.  One gathers she caught Wikinews-enthusiasm from Brian McNeil; and then she hung around studying the project and talking with us, and asking intelligent questions, for quite some time before she undertook her first article.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have met Brian as well, he's got a lot of passion and energy for the project, obviously. You make it sound like I did something wrong by not "talking" with everyone here. Or perhaps I'm just misreading your comment? :) Sarah (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I was more interested in commonalities between you and Laura.  In contrast, Wikipedians who have bad experiences here and leave in a huff tend, one gathers, to know of Wikinews beforehand mainly from having heard bad things about it, they come here assuming a news wiki should work the same way as an encyclopedic one, don't ready our policies-and-guidelines, don't ask questions, expect us to apply AGF, and take criticisms of their work personally.  I've been thinking a good deal about this lately (e.g. WN:Water cooler/proposals).  --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Web startup Sqoot loses sponsorship after failed advert is deemed sexist by social media
Hi. Left a note on the article collaboration page. --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Congrats!
Sarah, Nice story on Wikimania 2012, and congratulations on your first story, as well as joining the Wikinews community. I'm trying to organize a reporting team for Wikimania 2012. Let me know if you're interested! Best, Crtew (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! THANKS! It's pretty exciting. I'm on a bit of a high, and awaiting the reviews of other stories now. So this encouragement means a lot. I actually signed up to lend a hand here. SarahStierch (talk) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah!!! It's a Wikinewsie team now! That's great that you might be in Manhattan. I think we can recruit more people between now and then as many people haven't yet considered whether they or going. I want to create a project page to coordinate the coverage. Maybe we can get more than just text and photos out, like some video or audio. Crtew (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Two art museums in San Diego receive a $40 million art collection
Sarah, I added a transitional paragraph to the SD art story because WN has a three paragraph minimum per story. Shorter stories go in those "briefs" format, like this one Wikinews Shorts: March 21, 2012. I really liked your Sqoot story and the reason is that this particular story was not widely seen in the mainstream and you added extra value to the story through your interview and the focus. It's hard for WN to compete with the larger, for profit news agencies on the "breaking news" that require boots on the ground and resources and where there are no Wikinewsies around. What it can do well is strike a new focus out of existing stories based on the Wikinewsie's interest and deliver news that is not seen elsewhere. That and we can pop into places and talk to people that others haven't yet covered. Your interest in women and technology is a nice asset for you to tap in creating new stories here. Keep up the creative and good work! Crtew (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crtew. I got a little flustered when my shorter articles were deemed not Wikinews worthy (the 3 paragraph thing must have just breezed by me, as many policies and procedures do for newbies in the wikiworld). I also wondered if there was a brief thing - for someone like me, I wrote about some things that interested me, but they don't interest me enough to expand ;) I was watching TV when the Santorum stuff came up, so I thought "WHOA I'LL REPORT IT," and then was like "Oh, Wikinews won't care." LOL. (Why did I Care? I have no clue, because, I don't, actually.) Long rant shorter - I'll focus on more interesting things and do my best. :) Thanks for the kind words, it really really makes a difference (especially for newbies!!) Sarah (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarah, I was just looking at your Wikinews Shorts. The general rule is to use at least two sources per story. You're amazing! I can't believe how many stories you've published in such a short amount of time. Wow!!! Crtew (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't know it was two. I was following what the person who started the page was doing. But now I know, thanks =) Sarah (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Shorts
Some thoughts on "shorts" articles. --Pi zero (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The date on a published article is when it was published, not when the event took place. I apply the same principle to the headline of a shorts article.  When I saw the shorts article you'd been working on had been submitted for review, I figured, well, I'll take a look as soon as I've taken care of a few things irl.  But the first thing I'd do, in reviewing it, would have been to rename it to have the correct date.  Unfortunately, you've already created a new page with the name it would have to occupy.  Although that's a new twist, we've had difficulties in the recent past with coordinating additions to shorts articles.  (The shorts format was disused for a long time before being recently resurrected.)
 * Shorts articles are less than ideal to review. The amount of review effort can be quite significant, with all those sources to read and a series of disparate stories to wrap one's head around, while the product is by nature rather shallow.  With the effort required to write a large pile of shorts one could surely write a somewhat smaller number of shortish standalone articles, and for review the total effort would be comparable and the logistics far easier (since the entire job wouldn't have to be taken on monolithically).
 * A common theme to both the above items is the awkwardness of collections of shorts. We did have someone a while back trying to figure a way to smooth out workflow for shorts, but honestly Wikinews's merits lie on the quality-rather-than-quantity side of the equation, something we've been able to focus on better since the fork (a silver lining to that cloud).
 * Sounds like I let the inspiration take over and I caused more problems than anything else. Ah well, I'll just focus on other things. Thanks for the info, sorry I screwed up the process regarding shorts! Sarah (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're enthusiastic and you can write, which might not sound like much, but believe me, it's a welcome combination. There are things you don't know; well, you've been here a few days.  I've been here three and a half years and I'm still learning. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thank you =) I actually have a "journalism" background (I wrote for three magazines, a zine, and a free press paper in the Midwest!)...and writing in the fine art world for as long as I have, I guess I can attribute it to that. I did ask a question on the March 25 shorts page..so take a look :D Sarah (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Left a question for you on the article talk.
 * And I'll try not to hold your "journalism" background against you. :-) (Slightly inside joke: one of our more difficult contributors in recent memory claimed to have written for a newspaper.)  --Pi zero (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The shorts information is good to know. Thanks for clearing that up Pi Crtew (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Brothels legalized in Ontario, Canada
Found not ready on review. See review comments and. --Pi zero (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This article was a struggle for me as the resources at the time of press were limited to what you see there - a few interviews with people who supported the change of the law and that was it. I also stink at legalese and was totally fearing that I'd be accused of paraphrasing while writing it. I probably won't even work on it - at the time that I came across the story only 2-3 people had written about it and it's since blown up. Onto the next thing...and no more legalese for me :) Sarah (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You're enthusiastic. That's good. :-)  Be aware, you've not yet got entire past the steep part of the Wikinews learning curve.  My review comments flagged two basic problems, neither of which was to do with legalese.  You apparently used resources that you did not cite, which is a very serious breach on Wikinews; and there was a neutrality problem (one rather suspects, quite unconscious), also a big deal.

 * A general observation. As I remark on my user page, this project is about collaboration between authors and reviewers.  Keep in mind that, in requesting review for an article, one is asking volunteer reviewers to allocate some of their available project time to reviewing one's work, on the expectation that one (a) means to publish it, and (b) means to learn how to improve one's Wikinews contributions so as to, among other things, reduce how much work it will be for reviewers to review one's submissions in future.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Just want to echo Pi zero's comments. The first few articles I wrote, I had Style guide open and ticked all the boxes.  Sometimes I missed a few, but have gotten better at them. I ask on IRC how to improve in the future. -LauraHale (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Awesome tip Laura, thanks! I'll use that as my article "to do" list. And thanks again for inspiring me to join in. Sarah (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Great work

You get the Wikinews Dedicated Reporter Barnstar for hard work under pressure!

—Tom Morris (talk) 21:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And, indeed that is deserved.
 * Because we used Flagged Revs, and because this is breaking, you could do a dozen or-so edits to work a new piece of information in from another source, pop review on, then carry on. Yes, there would be edit conflicts; however, you would just override them and write a new, unreviewed, copy in-place.
 * I'm just hopping on IRC, because I've wondered how the hell we might handle a fast-breaking story like this for an absolute age. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Asiana Airlines
Fortunately, there were a number of articles in the archives to populate this. :-) Our rule on category population is, if there aren't three published articles waiting to go in the category, don't create it yet.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I assume that there were others (I did look and there are other Asiana Airlines articles) but I couldn't add the category because the articles are protected because they are old. Sarah (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

How to present claims of fact
I suspect — an uncomfortable suspicion — that you haven't got the hang of how news articles should present claims of fact, and that our review process is getting swamped so that reviewers aren't catching the problems. Resulting in stuff getting published that really violates our neutrality policy.

This is a fundamental difference from Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, one presents what one thinks is probably true. This is not the way one writes news. If there's any question whatsoever, the reader needs to know that. This comes under the heading of "neutrality" because we consider it non-neutral to present as definite fact something that is not definite (or is not fact — i.e., opinion). The basic technique is attribution. There is all the difference in the world between a terrorist attack took place and several explosions took place, which so-and-so called a "terrorist attack". Sometimes it's as easy as qualifying a claim of objective fact by saying "reportedly" or some similar word — if it's a claim of objective fact. Opinions require more careful attribution. And "terrorist attack" should always be treated as opinion; I'm appalled that an article was published on Wikinews calling the event a terrorist attack. --Pi zero (talk) 16:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Small case in point: the article said there were four explosions.  Then you propose to change it to say ten explosions, on the grounds two sources say that.  We shouldn't be guessing.  Clearly the article should not have said definitively in the first place that the number of explosions was four, and changing that to ten is just compounding the lack of respect for the reader.  We aren't here to tell readers what our best guess is, we're here to tell them factually that certain things are known, certain things are reported, certain things are claimed by certain parties, etc.

 * Sorry if I come across rather strong on this, but I'm really appalled by the lack of attribution of claims of fact. Often stuff is reported by the police, or someone like that, but it comes from someone, and it matters who it comes from.  And the reviewer (believe me, I know how difficult review is) blew it by passing it in this state.  It's just icing on the cake that the lede is far longer and more detailed than a lede should be.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't someone change the title? Everyone has their opinion on what neutrality is, opinion on what is neutral isn't neutral, which is funny :) Or someone could change what I wrote. In Wikipedia we have a concept called "#sofixit". So when someone is unhappy with your work, you can just say "Ok, well #sofixit!"

 * It's conversations (or comments) like this that make me go "yes yes yes ok" and then I drop off the face of the WikiNews planet for another year because I get inundated with why I'm not writing up to the standards of the five active editors here. Telling me you're appalled at something I wrote isn't the way to keep someone around. And if having too much content to review is an issue, then perhaps something has to change to get more reviewers and people to stick around. Constructive criticism is one thing, but using terms like "appalling" is surely not how it works in professional editorial circles, at least, in my experience as a published writer.

 * Even my panda article was told that it had too many references. Oy vey. I guess I just wasn't cut out to write Wikinews! Pehraps you should be bringing this up with the reviewers and not just me. Sarah (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Writing for Wikinews can be a marvelously satisfying experience once you grok the underlying concept; but sometimes when you haven't yet grasped elements of the underlying concept, that can make the experience frustrating. A couple of thoughts.
 * If you think "opinion on what is neutral isn't neutral", you're probably trying to use Wikipedia's notion of neutrality, which is vastly more subjective than Wikinews's. Neutrality on Wikinews is substantially grounded in objective reality; experienced Wikinewsies with radically different politics are nevertheless able to home in on the objective common ground of neutral Wikinews writing.  Minor points of disagreement occur, rarely.
 * Sofixit is too often used on Wikipedia to excuse the person writing something from responsibility for errors. Wikipedia doesn't care much about errors, really, on the theory that they'll eventually get fixed and in the long run they'll spend more time right than they ever did wrong.  But one of the defining characteristics of news is the importance of getting it right the first time.  Both the reporter and the reviewer need to be on-board with that priority.  On the "terrorist attack" article, you should be upset with yourself, and disappointed that it got published, and determined to not make that mistake again; saying that someone else should fix it is both denying responsibility for one's mistakes —everyone here has screwed up— denying the importance of getting things right the first time and denying the various infeasibilities of someone else fixing major problems in a news article they didn't write.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 * I just wanted to chime in to Sarah. There are often mistakes that happen.  Some of them are the mistake of the reporter (who is learning, or wants to write a particular topic, or cannot figure out how to write a story neutrally because of their passion) and some are the mistakes of the reviewer.  When the two combine together, it can create a very strange tension.  My most recent case was Reports of at least fourteen dead this week due to gun-related suicides in the United States, which eventually had to have a correct because of the POV problems.  Hindsight is 50/50, and things should have been handled better.  The reviewer should have been more thorough and should have worked with you to address these problems by not readying it.  (There is often a difficult balancing act for reviewers.  We strongly want to encourage new contributors and publishing articles seems like the way to do it... but we risk hurting our quality issues by doing that.)  That said, I have the same strong reservations pi zero has about the use of the word terrorists, the lack of specifying where alleged facts came from, and then the post publishing fixes to the article.  The total number of sources for me suggested those sources should have cited any questionable facts, which is why you would have so many sources... but none of them appeared in a glance through the article with things such as "Newspaper X says 5 explosions while Newspaper Y reports 10".  That was one of the reasons I did not want to review it myself. (And those things need to be reported.  RayBoy8 is a really good reporter, but in the reviewing stage, I edited the article to state clearly the sources did not publish the name of the dead woman because otherwise the implication was the police did not do it.  "Her name is unknown" would just be too ambiguous fact wise. --LauraHale (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:SarahStierch


text:
Thread:Comments:Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence/Archives of American Art and my blog

I just realized that I was quoted in this article. The writer brought my quote about digital rights and sales of Ansel Adams images by institutions out of context. It comes off 1) out of context to my blog which is imperative to the quotation being understood 2) that I am making a blanket statement about organizational policy as a whole regarding image use at institutions 3) that I am representing Archives of American Art, when I was making this statement as an individual outside of the organization. This is causing quite an issue during my Wikipedian In Residence position and I have had to do lengthy explaining to a number of GLAMs about my quotation being taken out of context. It would be ideal if my quotation could be removed or strictly placed into the context as stated on my blog. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Lucianosallago

-- 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lucianosallago


text:
User talk:I461002508

-- 19:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:I461002508


text: Talk:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US


text: Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US


text:
User talk:Cyrdovey

-- 19:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cyrdovey


text:
User talk:Roxas Valerio Vitale

-- 19:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Roxas Valerio Vitale


text:
User talk:Psroberts

-- 19:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Psroberts


text:
User talk:Lexoman

-- 19:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lexoman


text:
User:SarahStierch

 * User:SarahStierch

Greetings! I'm Sarah Stierch and I'm a long time Wikipedian.

I've been editing since 2004, and I love it. I have the opportunity to share amazing knowledge with the world, for free. It's an empowering experience that has allowed me to not only share free knowledge and media with the international community, but has brought amazing people in to my life. Wikipedia changed my life, no joke!

I hope you'll join me in this global movement: make an account today!

You can always drop by my page on Wikipedia and say hi, and learn more about the contributions I make as an editor. Thanks again for stopping by, see ya on Wiki!

p.s. I enjoy Wikinews, however, I'm not here for featured/good article style critiques, I'm here to have fun, inform people and share news I find interesting. If something doesn't get published, I most likely won't improve on it. I'm not here to be bogged down by excessive policies and so forth. I deal with that enough on Wikipedia. So, please keep that in mind. People won't stick around and edit if we just nag them about their writing styles and don't #sofixit.

Articles I've written

 * Panda cub born in Taiwan to gifted Chinese pandas, July 7 2013
 * Asiana Boeing 777 crashes upon landing at San Francisco International Airport, July 6, 2013
 * San Francisco Museum of Modern Art buys Edward Hopper valued at over $25 million, March 26, 2012
 * Web startup Sqoot loses sponsorship after failed advert deemed sexist by social media, March 25, 2012
 * Rick Santorum gains traction by winning Louisiana vote, March 25, 2012
 * Two San Diego art museums receive $40 million art collection, March 25, 2012
 * Wikimania 2012 announces Mary Gardiner as keynote speaker, March 23, 2012

title: User:SarahStierch


text:
User talk:Postbuddet

-- 20:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Postbuddet


text:
User talk:Lack15

-- 20:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lack15


text:
User talk:Lyypew

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

title: User talk:Lyypew


text:
User talk:GlobalEditBot

-- 21:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:GlobalEditBot


text:
User talk:Marian.kabele

-- 21:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marian.kabele


text:
User talk:TitaniumCarbide

-- 21:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:TitaniumCarbide


text:
User talk:Robotsfuture

-- 21:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robotsfuture


text:
User talk:Aleksanderbedek

-- 21:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aleksanderbedek


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/Comments from feedback form - "Good topic, good article."

Good topic, good article.


text:
Thread:Comments:Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence/Comments from feedback form - "Factual knowledge and it's man..."

Factual knowledge and it's management is the key to the future! Very fine article!


text:
User talk:Qurajber

-- 22:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Qurajber


text:
User talk:RicardoChirinos

-- 22:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:RicardoChirinos


text:
User talk:PM97

-- 23:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PM97


text:
User talk:Ecardenas214

-- 23:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ecardenas214


text:
User talk:Zampanoï

-- 23:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zampanoï


text:
User talk:Mikefergusonwv

-- 23:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mikefergusonwv


text:
User talk:Gung.krisna

-- 00:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gung.krisna


text:
User talk:Ajh1492

-- 00:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ajh1492


text:
User talk:Wiki1392

-- 00:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wiki1392


text:
User talk:Cofee1797

-- 00:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cofee1797


text:
User talk:Kid1412911

-- 00:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kid1412911


text:
User talk:Geraldine Campos

-- 01:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Geraldine Campos


text:
User talk:David ortiz jaimes

-- 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:David ortiz jaimes


text:
User talk:Donjuliorei

-- 02:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Donjuliorei


text:
User talk:Toriola1

-- 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Toriola1


text:
User talk:Alonso19989

-- 02:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alonso19989


text:
User talk:Cyberwani

-- 02:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cyberwani


text:
User talk:Jerian

-- 02:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jerian


text:
User talk:Sukrit chugh

-- 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sukrit chugh


text:
User talk:Dirt Diver

-- 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dirt Diver


text:
User talk:Jjibek

-- 04:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jjibek


text:
User talk:Huang70509359

-- 04:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Huang70509359


text:
User talk:Jahz13

-- 04:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jahz13


text:
User talk:PatrickCarbone

-- 04:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PatrickCarbone


text:
Thread:Comments:US Supreme Court rules video games are protected speech/Comments from feedback form - "Good article and judiciously p..."/reply

indeed. Scalia looks rather... jovial :P


text:
Thread:Comments:Google introduces the '+1' button/liking ads?

"Google also plans to eventually add the '+1' button to its text advertisements, globally known as 'AdWords'."

Why on earth would people prefer certain ads over others? I thought people hated them all!


text:
Thread:Comments:Debris narrowly misses International Space Station/where does all this debris come from?/reply (4)

lol... now that's a bit of wishful thinking. =P

Here's an idea: send up a magnet that will orbit around the earth and collect all of the debris! Pro: you collect a lot of harmful debris. Con: you end up with this huge blog of garbage, flying around the earth at thousands of miles per hour, with consequences more catastrophic than any one of the pieces of debris :/


text:
User talk:Pasteldreco

-- 04:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pasteldreco


text:
Thread:Comments:Google introduces the '+1' button/Comments from feedback form - "POOR WORK"/reply

=( so sorry to hear that... Lord Google should give you a "-1" button to express your frustration


text:
User talk:Cordero26

-- 05:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cordero26


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/hmmm....

"We rightfully worry about other teen health problems like obesity, depression or bullying, but we turn a blind eye to a more common and deadly epidemic that we can in fact prevent." I really hope she's not implying that obesity, depression, and bullying are not preventable. I would imagine that all of these things are preventable, but only with a certain combination of good parenting, after-school activities, and social pressure.


text:
Thread:Comments:Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence/Archives of American Art and my blog/reply

quote entirely removed


text:
Thread:Comments:Wikinews interviews US National Archives Wikipedian in Residence/Comments from feedback form - "Factual knowledge and it's man..."/reply

Thank you! I'm glad you enjoyed it. And this article wouldn't have been possible without the help of Mr. McDevitt-Parks, whose astute insight into the Archives-Wikipedia relationship has prompted me to think more carefully about the role of Wikipedia in disseminating information — "factual knowledge", as you call it. Collecting information is hard; organizing it is much much harder, and it is truly a miracle that Wikipedia has gotten this successful.


text:
User talk:Codebuilder

-- 05:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Codebuilder


text:
User talk:Kaliya Kubatbekova

-- 05:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kaliya Kubatbekova


text:
User talk:Rlhshen

-- 05:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rlhshen


text:
User talk:米尔格拉姆

-- 05:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:米尔格拉姆


text:
Thread:Comments:Greek workers strike over austerity measures/people working to help protesters...

"The Athens metro will remain open 'so as to allow Athenians to join the planned protests in the capital.'"

Wonderful. So they should send all of the bus and ferry drivers to work as well. How else are those protesters going to travel to the capital? And they might as well open up the hospitals and ambulance services as well, to make sure the protesters are getting the best treatment possible.

Oh wait. That's pretty much a huge chunk of the protesting population! oops

There's a reason why economic protests don't work. Go to the voting booths instead -- the ballot is your greatest weapon.


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/correlation and causation

"CASA found that 90% of adults who have addictive disorders started using substances before the age of 18. In comparison, only 4% of Americans who abuse as adults started using these drugs when 21 or older."

This seems like a classic example of correlation ≠ causation (or at least not necessarily). The type of people who don't use drugs until 21, are also the type of people who have good self-control. If the addicts waited until 21, they might still have equally poor self-control, and still get addicted later in life.


text:
User talk:Kailash singh

-- 05:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kailash singh


text:
User talk:Gumani

-- 06:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gumani


text:
Hundreds of thousands of British public sector workers strike over planned pension changes

July 1, 2011

Hundreds of thousands of British public sector workers went on strike across the country yesterday to protest planned changes to. As swept the country, half of all schools were hit when teachers walked out, thousands of emergency service responders did not arrive at work, and there were warnings of immigration delays at.

Police arrested 26 people as protesters picketed on a march in London, and riot police demonstrators as clashes broke out. Reports vary, but it is thought that up to half of British have been affected as employees did not turn up to work.

, the leader of the (PCS), said the strikes would serve as a "wake-up call" to the coalition government. "It's a very, very clear signal to the government that they have been rumbled," Serwotka said. "This is not about pensions, this is about making public sector workers pay for the economic problems, and we are determined to keep going until they change direction."

Government officials condemned the strike and said the planned changes to pensions, which would see teachers work until age 68 and get less from their pensions, were "fair to taxpayers" as Britain attempts to deal with a large. A spokesperson for insisted the strike was having a "minimal" impact and said the turnout suggested many public sector workers supported the pension changes.

, the general secretary of one of the striking unions, the (NUT), said the strike demonstrated "the anger and distress that this government is causing teachers." She said the "unjustified attacks" on the pensions of teachers "are nothing short of disgraceful." Speaking on BBC television programme , she added: "Much of this has already been imposed on teachers without negotiation, and when we say there are talks going on it's perfectly true that the government is talking but it isn't actually listening."

But despite government claims that the strike was having little impact, 5,679 schools were closed and another 4,999 were affected as teachers did not turn up for work. , the attacked the walkouts as "disappointing and unnecessary". Thousands of staff handling emergency also striked and pickets were held outside courts as members of the PCS walked out in protest.

, the, also maintained that the strikes were wrong and said the low number of people walking out showed many supported the government's plans. "What today has shown is that the vast majority of hard-working public sector employees do not support today's premature strike and have come into work today," he said.

Senior Labour party figures including, and  said the strikes were unjustified until negotiations with the government had concluded. Mary Bousted of the NUT criticised Labour's lack of support for the striking workers: "The response of Ed Miliband has been a disgrace - he should be ashamed of himself. If our strike is a mistake, what has he done to oppose this devastating attack on our pensions? If the opposition will not defend our pensions, we will."

A largely peaceful march by 30,000 protesters took place through London, and the atmosphere was reported to be largely peaceful, but officials said 26 people had been arrested. At a meeting in, many left wing figures attacked the government plans. , a former mayor of London who is running for the job again next year, said the coalition government had "mishandled" the issue of pensions. "The government must end its attacks and negotiate on the core issues under contention," he added.


text:
User talk:Aerozot

-- 06:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aerozot


text:
User talk:Umairaleemps

-- 06:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Umairaleemps


text:
User talk:Shakhov

-- 06:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shakhov


text:
User talk:Aidanek Amanjanova

-- 06:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aidanek Amanjanova


text:
User talk:Mattias321

-- 07:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mattias321


text:
User talk:Natafromkirov

-- 07:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Natafromkirov


text:
User talk:Lvcvlvs

-- 07:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lvcvlvs


text:
User talk:JITIN BASETIA

-- 07:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JITIN BASETIA


text:
User talk:Md Sohag

-- 07:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Md Sohag


text: User:GlobalEditBot

title: User:GlobalEditBot


text:
User talk:Justgps

-- 08:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Justgps


text:
User talk:Cabanick

-- 08:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cabanick


text:
User talk:Kentofyj

-- 09:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kentofyj


text:
User talk:SecondMD

-- 09:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:SecondMD


text:
User talk:Cinelover111

-- 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cinelover111


text:
User talk:Animesh.TitanicAndrewsPandey

-- 09:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Animesh.TitanicAndrewsPandey


text:
User talk:Bleues

-- 09:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bleues


text:
User talk:Rubertu 22

-- 09:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rubertu 22


text:
User talk:Verma.prateek

-- 10:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Verma.prateek


text:
User talk:Megaman0210

-- 10:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Megaman0210


text:
User talk:Kundan-sysnet

-- 10:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kundan-sysnet


text:
User talk:Trizek

-- 10:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Trizek


text:
User talk:Ivoloma

-- 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ivoloma


text:
User talk:Kdizdari

-- 11:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kdizdari


text:
User talk:Mme.india

-- 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mme.india


text:
User talk:Robert oduor

-- 11:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robert oduor


text:
User talk:ドナルドです

-- 12:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ドナルドです


text:
User:Islahaddow

this is Isla's WikiNews user page

title: User:Islahaddow


text:
User talk:MrsGunsNRoses

-- 12:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MrsGunsNRoses


text:
User talk:Hlj55567516

-- 12:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hlj55567516


text:
User talk:Ankitcktd

-- 12:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ankitcktd


text:
User talk:Marvin612

-- 12:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marvin612


text:
User talk:Fahad Asad

-- 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fahad Asad


text:
U.S. space agency NASA sues ex-astronaut

July 1, 2011

NASA, the space agency of the United States, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against former astronaut and sixth human to walk on the Moon. NASA filed the lawsuit in a Miami federal court after learning of Mitchell's plans to auction off a camera that was used on the surface of the Moon during the mission.

Mitchell, 80, claims that he had permission from NASA to keep the camera, saying that astronauts of his era were permitted to keep mementos from their missions. He argues that had he not kept the camera, it would have been destroyed: "It was government throwaways, government junk."

According to the lawsuit, however, NASA claims that "All equipment and property used during NASA operations remains the property of NASA unless explicitly released or transferred to another party." NASA goes on to claim that there is no official record of the possession of the camera being transferred to Mitchell.

The camera, which Mitchell planned to sell because of financial problems, was expected to catch about US$60,000 to $80,000.

Mitchell, along with Commander and Command Module Pilot, flew to the moon aboard the Apollo 14 mission in 1971, the third manned lunar landing. While Roosa orbited above, Shepard and Mitchell spent 33 hours on the surface of the Moon. Shepard and Mitchell became the fifth and sixth humans to walk on the Moon, respectively.


text:
User talk:Raphael745

-- 13:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Raphael745


text:
User talk:Rjw0429

-- 13:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rjw0429


text:
User talk:Rasmin03

-- 14:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rasmin03


text:
User talk:Frency97

-- 14:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Frency97


text:
User talk:Gokran.pathmeda

-- 14:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gokran.pathmeda


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/Comments from feedback form - "Sensationalist headline combin..."

Sensationalist headline combined with a VERY POOR study. Only 1000 students and in an online survey? This reeks of statistical manipulation and propaganda by people with an agenda


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/Misleading and sensationalist propaganda

I would like to draw your attention to the sample size. 1000 High School students in an ONLINE survey. Not sure about you but my high school participated in national surveys, and there were well over 1000 students in my high school alone. This entire article and the people supporting it reek of statistical manipulation to fulfill an agenda.


text:
User:STSC

Hello World! STSC (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User:STSC


text:
User talk:Vamiqsalman

-- 15:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vamiqsalman


text:
User talk:Strongriley

-- 15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Strongriley


text:
User talk:Blast furnace chip worker

-- 15:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Blast furnace chip worker


text:
User talk:Julisatv

-- 15:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Julisatv


text:
User talk:Artvijayan

-- 15:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Artvijayan


text: User talk:Crochet.david.bot

title: User talk:Crochet.david.bot


text:
User talk:Shushanto

-- 15:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shushanto


text:
Thread:Comments:Google introduces the '+1' button/liking ads?/reply

i have gone to sites before because of ADs so they can be good if they target what you like.


text:
User talk:Vuhp146

-- 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vuhp146


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/Misleading and sensationalist propaganda/reply

Agreed, this article is very misleading, and i really do not know the last time i saw tobacco in an ad or on tv.


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/correlation and causation/reply

Very true, i waited until after i was 18 to smoke/drink and it is not somthing i have to have or somthing i abuse. I have a couple drinks and stop, Its easy.


text:
User talk:Indranil.acharya

-- 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Indranil.acharya


text:
User talk:Angeluvcookie

-- 16:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Angeluvcookie


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/Misleading and sensationalist propaganda/reply (2)

mmm....and when you lump alcohol, tobacco, and drugs into one all-inclusive group called "drug abuse", then it could easily top the list of threats to public health


text:
User talk:Shem blu

-- 16:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shem blu


text:
User talk:Dimimis

-- 16:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dimimis


text:
User talk:Blendnd

-- 16:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Blendnd


text:
User:Teles

m:user:Teles

title: User:Teles


text:
User talk:M-99

-- 17:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:M-99


text:
User talk:Bakkermark

-- 17:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bakkermark


text:
User talk:MichaelGaribaldi

-- 17:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MichaelGaribaldi


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/correlation and causation/reply (2)

I agree that there are problems with the study, but none of the sources I found commented on the methodological problems. And it was not my place, as I understand wikinews, to point out problems that I saw but that are not found in the sources.


text:
User talk:Arminarkofatic

-- 17:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arminarkofatic


text: File:Illustration of "foreign=force" issue.pdf


text:
User talk:Nakagawa

-- 17:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nakagawa


text:
Thread:Comments:Google introduces the '+1' button/Comments from feedback form - "wonderful. very fine method +1..."

wonderful. very fine method +1 intrducing by Google. Long live Google! swamirajeshwaragiri 2011/07/01 at22/30pm


text: User:Nakagawa

title: User:Nakagawa


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/Misleading and sensationalist propaganda/reply (3)

This is a news article reporting on the fact that the findings from the survey were released, and in general what they were, according to the sources.

The most I could find in the sources were that the researchers used online surveys filled out by 1,000 high school students, and 1,000 parents of high school students, and 500 educators, and information from 5 focus groups, and reviews of 2,000 scientific articles and reports.

Granted this is a very vague description of how they gathered and analyzed the data, but it is only one study. It will be evaluated by other researchers who hopefully will gather more data to prove or disprove the findings of this particular study.


text:
User talk:Ivodemoura

-- 17:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ivodemoura


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/Comments from feedback form - "1000 students?? That's not eve..."

1000 students?? That's not even one school... and they are applying this data nationwide?


text:
User talk:Fbbekofb

-- 17:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fbbekofb


text:
User talk:Sanjeetnetam

-- 17:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sanjeetnetam


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/Comments from feedback form - "1000 students?? That's not eve..."/reply

As long as the researchers used a random sample, the sample size is irrelevant.


text:
User talk:Argi15

-- 17:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Argi15


text:
User talk:Nando cunha

-- 18:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nando cunha


text:
Thread:Comments:Report finds teen substance abuse is top public health problem in US/Comments from feedback form - "1000 students?? That's not eve..."/reply (2)

That's true. Unfortunately, none of the sources commented on how the samples were chosen.


text:
User talk:Raj660099

-- 18:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Raj660099


text:
User talk:Jackolp90

-- 18:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jackolp90


text:
User talk:Honza chodec

-- 18:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Honza chodec


text:
User talk:Sasasoul

-- 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sasasoul


text:
User talk:Johnjuca

-- 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Johnjuca


text:
User talk:Miryam80

-- 18:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Miryam80


text:
User talk:Aminsaberi

-- 19:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aminsaberi


text:
User talk:70.92.72.118

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

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

Thank you for your contributions! BarkingFish (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:70.92.72.118


text:
User talk:Paul Robert J.

-- 19:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Paul Robert J.


text:
User talk:Ryanschuylerwood

-- 19:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ryanschuylerwood


text:
User talk:Wizamkh

-- 19:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wizamkh


text: Comments:Dalai Lama begins trip to Taiwan


text:
User talk:Dhakal.govin

-- 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dhakal.govin


text:
User talk:Klodde

-- 19:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Klodde