text:
User talk:Dirtyd~enwikinews

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Brian McNeil / talk 13:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

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

title: User talk:Dirtyd~enwikinews


text:
Iraqi groups call for US pull-out

November 22, 2005

Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders issued a communique which calls for a pullout timetable for the U.S.-led coalition forces and also calls the insurgency "legitimate". Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers and leading Sunni politicians were all present to present the declaration.

"An immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order." is also demanded by the statement. The conference of leaders was part of an American-backed Arab league effort. The document included "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation."

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

title: Iraqi groups call for US pull-out


text:
User talk:217.10.50.85

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Brian McNeil / talk 14:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:217.10.50.85


text:
UK children's charities announce merger

November 22, 2005

Two of the UK's leading children's charities have announced that they are to merge.

ChildLine, formed in 1986 by the television presenter Esther Rantzen, is to become part of the NSPCC. The two charities have a combined annual income of over £125 million (213 million USD, 182 million Euro).

Sir Christopher Kelly, Chairman of NSPCC, said: "The NSPCC and ChildLine share the same vision for children and young people - we have always enjoyed a close working relationship. We are joining together now in the best interests of children. There is now an enormous opportunity to develop a more extensive service to help even more children. The two organisations are a natural fit. Esther and I are delighted to be in the position to reassure children and young people that ChildLine will be there for them today and tomorrow as it has been for nearly twenty years."

ChildLine has been in financial difficulties for some time. In July 2005 it launched an emergency appeal for an extra £1 million in order to keep its night service open.

title: UK children's charities announce merger


text:
User:OpenToppedBus

See my user page on Wikipedia - I'm only here very rarely.

title: User:OpenToppedBus


text:
Alleged Bush-Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked

November 22, 2005

An unverified discovered by the UK tabloid  claiming to have been leaked from Downing Street has been reported to contain a statement from US President George W. Bush about wishing to bomb the headquarters of Arabic TV station Al Jazeera in Doha, Qatar. According to The Daily Mirror, the President was dissuaded from bombing Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. The newspaper said its story was based on information from an unnamed source with access to the "top secret" memo of the President and Prime Minister's conversation.

The Daily Mirror reports that one of its sources said Bush "made clear he wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera in Qatar. Blair replied that would cause a big problem. There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do — and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." The Mirror is a United Kingdom-based tabloid, which has been under scrutiny in the past for publishing faked photographs depicting British soldiers abusing Iraqi detainees.

The document is said to be a transcript of a conversation between Bush and Tony Blair at the White House on the 16th of April 2004, when the second US offensive force enacted on the Iraqi city of.

Bush administration officials have criticized the Qatar-based network for their coverage of the War in Iraq and of other Middle East affairs. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had earlier accused the station of "inciting violence against [US] troops". Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the network "a mouthpiece for Al-Qaeda and a vehicle of anti-American propaganda". In a news conference a day before the document's supposed date, Rumsfeld was quoted as saying the following about the network's coverage of the War in Iraq: "I can definitively say that what Al-Jazeera is doing is vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable."

While a UK Government official was quoted in the report as saying Mr. Bush's remarks were intended as "humorous, not serious", another source with apparent access to the memo told the newspaper that "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men." The Washington Post quoted a senior diplomat saying that Bush's remark as recounted by The Daily Mirror "sounds like one of the president's one-liners that is meant as a joke", adding that "it was foolish for someone to write it down, and now it will be a story for days."

The authenticity of the documents and its alleged contents have not been verified independently. The source of the leak,, 49, a UK civil servant, is charged under Section 3 of the , of passing the memo to MP 's former assistant. Section 3 concerns "a person who is or has been a Crown servant or government contractor" and who made a "damaging disclosure" of "any information, document or other article" that relates to "international relations" or was "obtained from a State other than the United Kingdom or an international organisation". A document is deemed "damaging" if "(a) it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad; or (b) it is of information or of a document or article which is such that its unauthorised disclosure would be likely to have any of those effects."

Both Keogh and O'Connor are scheduled to appear in court later next week. Clarke has returned the memo to Downing Street and said O'Connor had behaved "perfectly correctly".

The British attorney general threatened newspapers with proscecution under the Official Secrets Act if they revealed any further details of the document. The British government has before obtained court injunctions against newspapers, but never prosecuted editors for publishing contents of leaked documents. According to The Guardian this "is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way". Knowing the legal ramifications, MP, and editor for the conservative magazine , Boris Johnson has offered to publish the full text of the leaked document and risk a jail sentence, if someone can provide him with a copy in the next couple of days. Arguing for the publication he said: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant. If we suppress the truth, we forget what we are fighting for."

Former British defense minister called for the full text of the memo to be published. "I believe that Downing Street ought to publish this memo in the interests of transparency, given that much of the detail appears to be in the public domain". He added "If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces." Al-Jazeera's Kabul office was hit indirectly by two US bombs in 2001 and Al-Jazeera's reporter was killed when two US missiles hit the Al-Jazeera office in Baghdad in 2003. The US has denied targeting the Al-Jazeera offices deliberately.

Al Jazeera has reacted cautiously to the report, releasing a statement in which it said it was investigating it and urged the US and UK governments to make the documents in question publicly available.

A spokesperson for the White House dismissed the allegations, saying, "We are not going to dignify something so outlandish with a response." Downing Street declined to make a statement, telling BBC News that official procedure prevents it from commenting on "leaked documents".


text:
Talk:Alleged Bush-Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked

 * You may also want to also read the twin article to this on Wikipedia for further details.

 * Archive 1 (Initial, Title, Comment, Problems with latest 'fix', for information purposes only, Discussion on Title, Suggestion of a more objective title, NPOV, changes, Disruptive Behaviour):

 * Archive 2 (Change title and publish, changes again, Seems like a consensus, allege vs. suggest/indicate/imply, Daily Mirror a reputable source ?, Sabotage):

Page Protection dispute
(Background information: MrMiscellanious originally protected this page for edit-war reasons. As noted below, Deprifry reverted this, and then Messedrocker added protection to the page again. The protection has since removed from the article.)
 * I've unprotected the article because there is no basis in policy for this action. Looking at the history this can hardly be called an edit war. Secondly, the protection policy also clearly prohibits admins currently involved in a dispute from applying a protection. --Deprifry|+T+ 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope you review your actions, the history, and the comments left on this page to revert your decision. This article is in need of a temporary protection, and things need to be sorted out here, on the talk page first.  -MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Deprifry seems correct here. I find one inappropriate republication by Neutralizer, which was not repeated after your re-depublication.  Your only talk page contribution following depublication no. 1 talked about not assuming sources were authentic. As best as I can tell, the general consensus was that the authenticity issue had been adequately handled, notably by making "unverified" the 2nd word of the artile.  :)  I'm not sure what more you could want here.  Nyarlathotep 21:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose if you don't believe there is any wars going on on this page, then I will not argue with you. However, this page feels like a grand breeding ground for high levels of Wikinews controversy, so I feel like we should wait until any and all arguments relating to the page's content are solved. If you wish to pass off my actions as illegitimate, then by all means revert my page protection. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time an energy on this article, I would like to hear an *explanation* for your lock. Please detail what and whose editing practices warrent your decision to employ the block. Your "feelings" are not a good enough *reason* for your actions. Reducing this to "you believe" and "I feel" does not seem appropriate here, there are too many people impacted. --vonbergm 02:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As you wish, some names. MrMiscellanious was interested to a page protection, which was reverted. I agreed to the protection, and as a neutral party to the dispute, I made it so. Apparently, that's all I can provide you. Since your request can't be satisfied, I taken to the liberty of unprotecting the article. I just wanted to prevent Hell from rising over. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the honest explanation. And thanks for lifting the lock. --vonbergm 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * In addition, I would like for some users to see it from my perspective. When you have a group of three or so editors who revert every and all of your edits, and you try to make contact with them on the talk page (as it shows), a "vote" is mysteriously taken and then the revert comes up with the comment of the following: "consensus is to publish".  I want everyone to realize that consensus doesn't replace policy, and it never will.  Consensus can be made to amend or edit the policy in community-backed changes, but it never is used for exemption from policy.  As long as an editor has a valid claim ("actionable objection"), the notice should be taken seriously.  To be quite honest with you, I wanted to have the dispute finished as fast as I could, so as a protection to all users - the discussion continued on this talk page and did not result in an edit war that was absolutely guaranteed to happen had it been left unprotected.  Therefore, as the protection policy states, a temporary padlock was allowable and is actually recommended to avoid an edit war.  There's my reasoning.  And I thank Messedrocker for addressing my concern as a third party.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This might be your point of view. However, mine is quite different. Some of your edits were discussed and left in, for example the emphasis on the documents being "unverified". If you look for "revets", i.e. edits that returned parts of the article to one own's last version, then I believe that you are the guilty one here. (Check the record if you feel the need.) No "vote" was ever taken, although you are right in the characterization that you were alone in your opinion among the active editors. Some of your objections were not "actionable" but vague and unspecific. Even when an effort was made to guess the true nature of your objections and address them (by e.g. providing you with specific references), you were not satisfied and simply insisted on having objections. The concerns you had were all addressed before you locked the page. I even gave you the links to the specific quotes you asked for on the discussion page. You know that it is against the policy to protect the page when you are actively involved in a dispute. (I hope this is not an "abuse of admin powers".) If you are serious about ending a dispute and truely believe that protecting the page is the only way to prevent an edit war (I don't think that this was the case, maybe you were agraid of getting close to 3RR....), try to find an administrator that is agreeable to all sides to mediate and take the apporpriate actions. --vonbergm 04:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A fair warning to Mrmiscellanious.

It is obvious that you abused your administrator power. As you say there was no editwar at the time. Me and other editors did not engage in what could be a tagwar that you may have started by your way of editing and depublishing. I argued and showed patience because there was a editingprocess and discussion on talk. The article was put to develop two times by you and was republished after 14 hours editing and compromising. You unpublish it again and locked it. Now this was to initiate a "war" as seen on this page. And as above talk condescending about "a group of three or so editors" as I was a part of is a insult. This insident alone is enough for me to ask for your deadministration. But I only warn you this time. You really must change your attitude immediately and if you understand the gravity of this you really watch your behavior and act like a good administrator kept apart from your role as a editor that i might complain little about but it is another thing that is solved on talkpages each time durin the editingprocess. So be warned, the least step close to missusing your administrational power again will result that I use my right to ask for your administratorstatus to be revoced. With hope of future respectfull and constructive co-operation on wikinews project.International 18:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The locking
Who is now resposible for the locking of the article?International 23:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe it is messedrocker Neutralizer 23:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What needs to be done now?
As this article is protected, there should be discussion as to what needs to be done to get the article unprotected and publishable. What are the current concerns about the article? --Chiacomo (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * . --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible to summarize the actionable objections here so newcomers to this discussion don't have to read the whole page? --Chiacomo (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Quote" section is all I'm concerned about right now. But I believe others have issues with the credibility of some of the sources... (I won't comment on that).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The comments by Vonbergm & myself at the end of quote section summarize the requested alterations as we understand them, no one has objedcted to this interpretation. The Mirror's credibility only came up later, meaning it has no bearing on the lock.  Plus, there was an almost immediate consensus to follow the suggestions of StuRat & myself: mention they are a tabloid which has faked photos in the past. Nyarlathotep 00:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I found one quote here on the PBS website: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has called the network "a mouthpiece for al-Qaeda and a vehicle of anti-American propaganda." So that quote can be sourced at least to that website and attributed to the SecDef.

The other quote can be attributed to Deputy SecDef Paul Wolfowitz at this site: ''Wolfowitz: Well, what I'm complaining of are false reporting and very biased reporting that has the effect of inciting violence against our troops, and these governments should stop and realize that this is not a game; that they are endangering the lives of American troops, and, you know, they have a way, when they want to cover somebody favorably, including Saddam Hussein in the old days, of slanting the news incredibly. Well, a little bit of honesty would help and the lack of -- and ending this incitement would be what we'd like to see.''

If the quotes were properly attributed and sourced, would that take care of the "quotes" problem? --Chiacomo (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It would. Thank you.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * So these quotes were the problem? For these I named to two sources and provided links for youexplicitly in the discussion on several occasions above. Also, I argued against detailing the names and sources within the text as this is just background information and diverts from the main story and asked you to give *reasons* why you think it is important to include the names and sources within the article text. You never responded to that. --vonbergm 00:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

invitation
News never end! Come and do some constructiv work. I think it shoud be fixt and published fast. And dont fuck this article up in disputes, please!International 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a brief summary of this development into the article last night (in the brief sweet period when constructive development was possible). There is also a Post article with a US senior diplomat making some comments that seem to acknowledge the basic thrust of the allegations. The diplomat plays the statements down as the type of joke typical for Bush. You might want to add that info over there as this article is not going anywhere. --vonbergm 00:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected article interim modification suggestions
As far as grammar, the use of 'sources' in "The sources of the leak, David Keogh, 49, a UK civil servant ..." is incorrect, it should be 'source' as only a single person's name is provided and the remainder "..." describes what he, singularly, has been accused of doing. Also, perhaps division into distinct sections for each position wherein each is appropriately qualified with the necessary cautions as to probable accuracy according to the source for each segment of information; that is, perhaps we should abolish the narrative form for the greater part and provide a series of summaries with the relevant qualifications given before each for the information contained within each particular section. The general narrative form itself seems the cause of complaints, that either qualifications made are not adequately assigned or not adequately stressed to indicate specific subjects within the current form, or that specific bits of information should or should not be covered within particular implied sections; the solution seems to me to be that we establish definitive sections and divide all material appropriately. At the least, that should let the resolution of this article's problematic aspects proceed more quickly at least as far as identification of problematic areas.

Also, what is the method of dividing this page? There is a warning regarding its present length. 68.210.70.211 02:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess diverting the page somehow defies the concept of locking it. But good idea anyway, finally something constructive! What you suggest might work. I suggest the following additional changes.

 * Add a short statement to the extend that the US characterized the previous bombings of al-Jazeera office and consequent deth of a correspondent as accidental.
 * Add a quote from a senior US diplomat from today's Post article:

 * In Washington, a senior diplomat said the Bush remark as recounted in the newspaper "sounds like one of the president's one-liners that is meant as a joke." But, the diplomat said, "it was foolish for someone to write it down, and now it will be a story for days."

 * This on one hand relativises the alleged statement (what a topic to joke about, if this really was a joke!) and implicitely confirms some of alleged content of the conversation by commenting on the "act of writing it down".

 * No worse than Reagan's joke: "I've just outlawed the Soviet Union...we start bombing in 5 minutes." StuRat 03:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I've got a handful of jokes from Carter and JFK that are much worse than both of them. Then again, attribute either of them with some of them and some people will get a little touchy.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Unreliable sources = U.S/UK Governments
Haven't the US and UK governments proven to be the 2 most fraudulent,POV and unreliable sources of information on the planet over the past 4 years? Does that mean we will not report what they have to say? Are we going to be qualifying everything that comes out of the Whitehouse as being "from the Whitehouse, an unreliable source of information" ? Can we please step back and see the utter hypocrisies inherent in taking the statements of these 2 governments at face value and cranking up the "prove it" threshold for any contrary reports? Neutralizer 03:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, there is no point in getting unreasonable just because you perceive other to be, rightly or not. Your argument is in principle correct. Any statement based on classified information is "unverified" or even "unverifiable" by the public. There are plenty of examples of facually misleading at best if not factually wrong statements made by government officials that were "unvified". Watching out for this is a good idea, but we need to keep the proportions right. The Daily Mirror does not have a very good record either, so being cautions is good and necessary. A good idea to keep an eye on this. Your statement is a little strong though... --vonbergm 03:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I certainly would consider info about Iraq from either government to be unreliable. However, unlike the Daily Mirror, which isn't known worldwide, the reputations of those two governments are quite widely known, eliminating the need to explain how unreliable they are. StuRat 03:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Not sure if I can agree with that assessment. The Daily Mirror comes with a wikilink explaining its reputation. The US government may have that reputation outside of the US, but not in the US. (Funny how that works), there are plenty of people that will disagree with your assessment on the US reputation, but not many that will when it comes to The Daily Mirror. --vonbergm 03:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * At any rate, people around the world have enough info on statements by the White House and Downing Street to make their own decisions as to the reliability of info from those sources, while those outside of England are not likely to know enough to make a decision on the Mirror, unless we provide it. I doubt if many of the readers will follow all the links in an article as that would make it take days to read. StuRat 03:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * No, because I refuse to allow you to publish stories that could be dead wrong. Wikinews doesn't exist to come here to present POV or bias in our articles - your outburst of statements about both governments on this page makes me think that you should try to avoid articles of this nature, as you have been asked continually by other users to do so.  And no, Wikinews will NEVER "step back" and "crank up" anything - your request was to say, "they're wrong all the time!  Let's write smut about them!"  That is not what Wikinews is for.  That is not what Wikinews will become.  May I suggest you take a look at Indymedia instead?  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * MrM; please re-read. You are making gross,inaccurate and misleading statements about what I actually said above. Would it be reasonable to qualify every news item out of the White house by saying "this Whitehouse has, in the past, given out false information; such as the WMD scare"...I say "no" it would not be reasonable. That is my point.Your angry personal attack is uncalled for and unacceptable as you were not addressed at all in my comment. Neutralizer 14:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * MrM, to whom are you referring? -Edbrown05 04:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That was to Neutralizer.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Something is obviously happening here. No news is not good news. Something ain't happenin' here. -Edbrown05 04:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This a collaborative model; not a dictatorial model
There is nothing in policy allowing for 1 editor to consistently block/impede articles about particular subject matter; especially without putting out any effort to "fix" the article. This is a collaborative project and to act as a "teacher" forcing "students" back to work on their essays(with a few suggestions for how to maybe satisfy the teacher) until they get it to read the way the teacher wants is not a sensible model for a collaborative project. The other concern is that if individual editors are allowed to get away with this type of behavior long enough, then eventually we will have a model where articles have to get a particular "boss"'s ok before being published. With this particular article, we have already reached that point. MrM should take his anger and unilateral approach to a blog where it belongs (response to indymedia slurr above). Neutralizer 14:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

changes
I made some changes and added some information to keep it up to date. I hope I addressed all remaining concerns. Please let me know if there are any actionable objections left. --vonbergm 03:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, a somewhat minor one. If we can avoid using slashes "/", it'd be best.  Mediawiki splits slashes into quasi-directories (in essence, this article would be Alleged Bush -> Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked).  Not sure how you guys want to do it, so I'll leave it up to suggestions below.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe someone else can fix the title, I am not up for another discussion on this. If I had to do it I would just replace the "/" by a "-", but that does not make the title any better. In the meantime, I guess it is ok to publish as it is. So whoever feels brave, turn the flags and think about the title! --vonbergm 04:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I should not be so fast I guess, there is a minor issue with the new edits. The information regarding the doctored pictures published by the Mirror is slightly incorrect. These were not pretending to be "Abu-Graib" pictures. Whoever put this in, please correct. --vonbergm 04:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Have already corrected it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Archives
Are there any objections to the current archives? Have I made any mistakes in their creation? 68.210.70.211 04:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Tough question
I want us to be consistent in our casing of "Al-Jazeera". So, how should we write it? "al-Jazeera", "al Jazeera", "Al-Jazeera", "Al Jazeera"? --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 04:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Pick one. Its all you. --vonbergm 05:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * The english Aljazeera page has it as Aljazeera --Cspurrier 05:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I've seen the "al" as lowercase, so I vote for al-Jazeera. StuRat 05:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * ditto StuRat... been buggin' me for a while too... al-Jazeera, but whatever is decided. -Edbrown05 05:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * To add to the confusion: Wikipedia has it as "Al Jazeera" --vonbergm 05:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course, in Wikipedia, all entries must start with uppercase, they have no choice. StuRat 06:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts
Wikinews "edit wars" almost always seem to be over the npov and publish tags. There should be a good reason for this, being "done" is not a wiki concept. Wikipedia doesn't remove an article from its search for npov, it just won't give it FA status. I would suggest the following policy changes: Wikipedians often agree to disagree about the NPOV status of an article for an extended period of time, although such truces eventually come to an end once an obstanant editor leaves, and the article will be edited into a new state which participants feel is NPOV. This slow flexible policy is actually essential in keeping controversial content in wikipedia. Wikinews needs a slower policy like this. Sure, many articles will disapear into the sands of time with NPOV still tatued on their forehead, but wikistreess will go way down, as people will nolonger feel like they are fighting for the survival of their article. Nyarlathotep 10:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Decouple publication from absolute NPOV status: seriously POV articles would not be published, or could even be deleted, but minor infractions would simply be tagged under current tagging rules.  all published articles would apppear in the list of articles, but tagged ones could apppear in a smaller font size.
 * Make "completenss" the main criteria for publication, i.e. no stubs!
 * I agree with this suggestion Neutralizer 14:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. We shoul also consider using the [w:WP:PWDS pure wiki deletion system], but I'm not going to advocate for that one.

Ready for publishing?
Have the editors reached a consensus? I say "yes", all concerns, actionable or not, have been sufficiently addressed and dealt with. Neutralizer 15:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

More thoughts
I don't mean to defend the bombing here, but its important to remember that many such things are intentional, and relatively normal in the realm of international politics. Nations get away with what they can get away with. Today, the Israeli sinking of a U.S. spy ship is generally viewed as intentional, as is the U.S. bombing of the Chinese embassy, in both cases all nations just agree to shut up about it and let the public forget. And such activities are certainly not restricted to nations who piss people off, its just wont be a bombing if your not at war in the first place. Its all really a general artifact of power & decission making processes.

There was this great story about a guy who made a living putting bagels in buisnesses with a note to please leave money for them. His rate of payment from floors with ordinary people was pretty good, but his rate of payment on floors with executives went way down. Same sort of thought processes really. - Nyarlathotep 18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to check the bagel thing it is in freaconomics ( really good book) Dolive21 12:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Deserves Lead
With all the work that went into this; it deserves to be Lead article; so done. Neutralizer 22:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say "featured", as it needs an update (and this article is quasi-old). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Thezorg

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Brian McNeil / talk 19:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Thezorg


text:
Talk:Iraqi groups call for US pull-out

As it stands (right now, as I write this comment) this article isn't a problem. However some of the titles it has had in the past would have been. The key information for this article is the call for a pullout, and the timetable implied by the allegation that the mandate from the UN will not allow the US to stay too long.

I have changed the title to say "groups" as I can't get a good definition on who represents who at this conference in Cairo. If that information can be found it belongs in the article, if it throws the title way out of whack then that should be changed.

I know this isn't an easy story to get to a stage where it justifies publish, but it is possible if you're prepared to accept it may not be as damning of one side as you might wish. Brian McNeil / talk 19:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Iraqi groups call for US pull-out


text:
User talk:Errol-~enwikinews

Welcome
Errol-, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Brian McNeil / talk 20:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Errol-~enwikinews


text:
User talk:207.63.100.162

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Borofkin 23:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:207.63.100.162


text:
User talk:DustWolf~enwikinews

Welcome
, welcome to Wikinews! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you haven't done so already, you may want to create an account.

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Bawolff ☺☻ 23:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Newsroom - The comunity portal
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

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 DustWolf. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name DustWolf~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 23:16, 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:DustWolf~enwikinews


text:
User:68.210.70.211

Record of contributions

Guidelines: Policy and style guide.

Also reference Wikipedia: Policies and guidelines and | Wikipedia Manual of Style

Contribution list link component: http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=

title: User:68.210.70.211


text:
Talk:US military admits to accidentally killing Iraqi child

Title
Either it's singular, or plural, not both. -  Amgine | talk 08:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The title is also rather POV as it implies there is a policy that results in killing children rather than this having been an accidental killing. I can't come up with a short replacement at the moment.  Watch the redirects when it is moved, I got one yesterday that was wrong and I had to fix it twice before I got it right.
 * Also, the Toronto Star requires a login to read, this can be easy to forget if your browser has cached the login credentials. The title does imply that this incident would only be mentioned as a footnote in the story though. Brian McNeil / talk 08:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really, but you could add "accidentally" if you like.. no one would object if sources support it. - Nyarlathotep 09:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * US military admits accidentally killing Iraqi children. Good title?International 14:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Should be fine. Or "US military admits to accidental killing Iraqi children"  Never sure about grammer in titles.
 * I believe zarkawi(whatever) said the Jordan bombings did not mean to target a wedding party. Should we start assuming/saying killings are accidents when somebody says they are? "admits killing" is the fact here..an admission and a killing; those are the facts. we can add they say it's accidental in the story itself. Or next we'll have to be saying "AL-Queda admits accidently bombing a wedding party". Neutralizer 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, here its just a matter of taste, Brianmc's to be precise, and likely MrM's too. Its natural that the U.S. would claim that its accidental, so it doesn't really need to be mentioned.  As its less obvious that Zarkawi would say this about the wedding party, its clearly a higher priority to mention it in your case.  Nyarlathotep 18:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have moved the article to a less sensational title. If you read the provided source articles closely, the US military has only admitted to killing a child (singular), so there's no need for "children". Lankiveil 02:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC).

cynical
Maybe I am a little too cynical here, but why exactly is this news? --vonbergm 06:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * What is your point? Children being shot is not news to you? - Apollyon 18:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess I should be more precise. By all means, this should be reported. The danger with reporting on single instances like this is that the act of reporting one out of many instances implicitely negates all the others. There are no reliable estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq. But compare the amount of reporting a couple of civilians that got shot at checkpoints get to the civilians that died in, say, Faluujah. In the first instance, there happened to be an embedded journalist at the scene to report. In the second we only have some picutres and a rough estimate (the guardian estimated about 1000 a couple of days ago). Reporting on only single instances makes it seem like the other's don't exist. Stylizing this to be a 'news' item negates to nature of this war. In a war people die. Civilians die. Children die. In a broader sense, this is only 'news' because we forget all the other civilians that die every day. They die at the hands of the insurgency (we got pretty good coverage on the incidents and the numbers) and through US weapons (we have no reliable estimates on numbers here, especially when it comes to bombing which costs the most civilian lives).
 * As I said, these events should be reported. But I am also frustrated with what is not reported on (or not reportable because there is no reliable information). --vonbergm 19:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Kulashekar~enwikinews

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

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Brian McNeil / talk 08:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

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

title: User talk:Kulashekar~enwikinews


text:
Talk:Electronic Frontier Foundation sues Sony over CD technology

Temporarily discontinue? You mean it will return?


text:
Bush backtracks over legal status of alleged "Dirty Bomber" Jose Padilla

November 23, 2005

President George W. Bush ordered Jose Padilla, detained by the US Military as an alleged terrorist, to be transferred out of military custody in order to face trial in a federal criminal court. He is charged with conspiracy to commit murder, kidnapping, aiding terrorist groups and other acts against US nationals outside the United States. These actions come six days ahead of a decision by the US Supreme Court on whether it should review the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's ruling that the president is authorised to hold Padilla as an "Enemy Combatant" without charge.

Jose Padilla, a US citizen born in Brooklyn, has been held without charge in a military brig at a US Navy detention facility in South Carolina for the three-and-a-half years since his arrest in 2002. The administration had at the time alleged that Padilla was plotting to detonate a Radioactive "dirty" bomb in the US and later, Deputy Attorney General James Comey alleged that he was involved in plots to blow up Hotels and high-rise buildings. The present indictment does not include any charges over these allegations. Instead, Padilla is charged with travelling abroad to train in "violent Jihad", providing material support to terrorists by sending money, physical assets, and new recruits to Jihadi groups, and conspiring to murder individuals overseas.

The change in custody restores to Padilla a number of rights he had been denied when the administration designated him as an "Enemy Combatant", including the right to access federal courts and be defended by an attorney. That constitutionality of detaining suspects without charge under this designation has been challenged in court, on behalf of Padilla and in September, a 3-judge panel of the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the government's powers to detain Padilla. The Supreme Court was set to decide on whether it will review that decision next week. Padilla's status, for the purpose of this trial, is that of an ordinary criminal indictee, possessing the legal rights conferred on him by the US Bill of Rights.

Constitutionality of Padilla's Detention
The existence of the classification of "enemy combatant" has no precedent in either US or international law, and allows detention without reference to the customary judicial protections for criminal defendants in the US, and also without reference to the acts of congress and the agreements made in the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners of war.

Several precedents exist for the habeas petition put forth by Padilla's attorney, Donna Newman. In June 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Yaser Hamdi that enemy combatants captured on foreign battlefields were entitled to some due process determination of their status. Hamdi was released on condition that he remain in his parent's homeland Saudi Arabia. Hamdi is a US citizen who had been captured among Taliban fighters in Afghanistan and who was similarly classified as an enemy combatant. In a case decided around the same time, the high court ruled that prisoners at Guantánamo could seek habeas relief in US courts. It, however, avoided ruling on Padilla’s petition and voted 5-4 that Padilla's initial appeal should have been in Charleston, South Carolina, where he was being held, rather than in New York, where he was first held as a material witness.

Padilla’s attorney, Donna Newman, filed a new habeas petition in South Carolina, where United States District Judge Henry F. Floyd ruled that Padilla was required to be charged with a crime or released. Floyd wrote of the Bush administration’s position that “were ever adopted by the courts, it would totally eviscerate the limits placed on presidential authority to protect the citizenry’s individual liberties”. Floyd is one of the justices appointed by President Bush. Floyd’s decision was reversed in September of 2005 by a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Michael J. Luttig. Luttig claimed that Padilla served as a guard for the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan during the period that US troops were engaged in combat against those organizations, and that he then “traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets”.

Padilla filed a second petition last month with the Supreme Court that was aimed at appealing Luttig’s ruling. Padilla’s lawyers intend to continue to proceed in the Supreme Court after the release of their client from military custody. Andrew Patel, Newman’s co-counsel, said on the radio show Democracy Now! that “the threat posed by the Bush administration’s invocation of the "enemy combatant" doctrine still exists". Patel further stated in opposition to the claim by Gonzales claim during the Tuesday indictment announcement that the case is moot, "We will ask the Court to consider this very important issue. Not only is it not moot as to Mr. Padilla—for example, suppose he was acquitted of this charge or the case was somehow dismissed, and the government decided that, 'Well, we don’t want him out,' and they just declare him to be an enemy combatant and send him back to the brig again. Until the Supreme Court rules that the president does not have that power, that's an authority, as Justice Jackson said in his dissent to Korematsu [the World War II Japanese-American internment case], that lies around like a loaded gun ready to be used or abused at any time."

Padilla's detention and present Indictment
The development of this case began with Padilla's arrest at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport in May of 2002. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft announced in June of the same year that a plot to explode a radioactive dirty bomb in America had been stopped; and described as a goal of several Al Qaeda operatives, including Padilla. On this basis, President Bush declared Padilla to be an “enemy combatant,” and authorized his transfer to a Naval brig, with the requisite limitations on his developing of a defense thus imposed by the classification. By June 2004, court reverses allowed Padilla to meet with legal council. Additional charges of plotting to destroy hotels and apartment buildings were claimed against Padilla by the Justice Department. These charges, however, were not included in the indictment released Tuesday.

This indictment focused on conspiracy charges against Padilla, particularly that he conspired with Adham Amin Hassoun, Kifah Wael Jayyousi, Mohammed Hesham Youssef and Kassem Daher to send funds, physical assets and recruits intended to continue fighting in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Lebanon, Libya and Somalia. Further, it is charged that this was done through multiple front groups, including the American Islamic Group, the Islamic Center of the Americas, and Save Bosnia Now. The support for this conspiracy is claimed to have begun in 1993 and continue until November 2001 and consists of conversations obtained by wiretaps including alleged code words including "friends,” “football,” “tourism,” “fresh air,” and “picnics,”. The indictment further includes various payments of ranges from 1,000 to 5,000 USD. Padilla is mentioned as a "recruit" who had traveled to Egypt and Afghanistan where he completed a “Mujahideen Data Form”. He is not alleged to have engaged in any violent activities.

Gonzales also alleged that the conspiracy advocated "acts of physical violence such as murder, maiming, kidnapping and hostage-taking against innocent civilians," but this was not included in the Tuesday indictment.


text:
User talk:81.173.188.82

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. 81.173.188.82, welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Deprifry|+T+ 12:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:81.173.188.82


text:
Australian man threatens to shoot down chopper with tomato-bazooka

November 23, 2005 Southport Magistrates' Court was told today that Anthony Douglas Donohue, 34 was so annoyed by a helicopter hovering over his home that he telephoned Air Services Australia with a threatening message yesterday.

Donohue allegedly threatened to blow the chopper out of the sky using a home-made bazooka loaded with tomatoes. Police swung into action searching Donohue's Queensland home. A police spokesperson stated that such situations were taken "very seriously", although no weapons had been found. "Fruit is hardly a weapon of mass terror," Donohue's solicitor Bill Potts said.

Mr Donohue is charged with two counts of threatening to endanger the safety of an aircraft and the case will go to court next month.


text:
User talk:216.218.93.253

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. 216.218.93.253, welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--Cspurrier 14:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:216.218.93.253


text:
Category:November 23, 2005

de:Kategorie:23.11.2005 es:Categoría:23 de noviembre de 2005 fr:Catégorie:23 novembre 2005 it:Categoria:23 novembre 2005 ja:Category:2005年11月23日 pl:Kategoria:23 listopada 2005 pt:Categoria:23 de novembro de 2005 ru:Категория:23 ноября 2005

title: Category:November 23, 2005


text:
User talk:62.253.219.131

Welcome
Thanks for experimenting with Wikinews. Your test worked, and has now been reverted or removed. Please use Sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles may disrupt the site's working and will be reverted quickly. 62.253.219.131, welcome to Wikinews! Please refrain from using content pages for testing. Here are a few good links for newcomers on how to edit Wikinews:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Deprifry|+T+ 15:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how an article should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:62.253.219.131


text:
Talk:Australian man threatens to shoot down chopper with tomato-bazooka

More material and sources are needed. For example, descriptions of the location and why the helicopter was hovering over the man's home should be added. An analysis as to whether a tomato filled bazooka could pose a serious threat the a helicopter is also needed. StuRat 18:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

ahh who cares it was probably some coper spying on some topless chicks at a pool.ill have a look again for more information 2night but the google news sources all had the same information. - unsigned comment from Whywhywhy'

Agreed, it's hardly worth the effort. The point of this story is the hilarious "tomato-bazooka". - Borofkin 23:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Swinging into action...
Please accept my appologies (and revert) if my edit of swang->swung counters the author's local dialect. My source for the edit was Merriam-Webster which indicates that 'swang' is considered dialectal and not in widespread formal use, nor does it appear in carefully edited prose. If it were quoted material, I would not change it, but since the scope of WikiNews readers is worldwide, I recommend more formal usage. Please don't shoot me with your tomato-bazooka! Karen 19:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

 * Some people think those who use "swang" should be hanged, while others think those who use "swung" should be hung. :-) StuRat 20:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

swung, swang its all good--Whywhywhy 20:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

front page news
i didnt relies wacky news ended up on the front page. anyway i dont think it should be there--Whywhywhy 20:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. I'm a long way from Australia and I was glad to see the story, it raised a smile. Brian McNeil / talk 21:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

At the moment, all articles produced appear on the front page, because the entire wiki only produces about five articles a day. When we start producing more, articles like this will be flagged such that they don't appear. - Borofkin 23:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * oops, I thought it was lead story stuff! ;) -68.232.153.54 02:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Venezuela provides discounted heating oil to Massachusetts

November 25, 2005

Venezuela will provide heating oil at a 40% discount to low income families in Massachusetts this winter. According to an agreement signed on Tuesday Citgo, the Houston-based subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, will provide 12 million gallons of discounted home heating oil. The oil will be distributed through two nonprofit organizations, Citizens Energy Corp. and the Mass Energy Consumer Alliance.

In August William Delahunt (D-Mass) met President Hugo Chávez in Caracas. The meeting between a member of Congress and a head of state so critical of the White House, sparked negotiations that led to the deal. Mr Delahunt said he was simply trying to smooth strained US-Venezuelan relations while helping low-income people in his home state.

Hugo Chávez says he is leading a Bolivarian Revolution and calls his program an act of justice for poor Americans, whom he says have been neglected by their government. Mr Chávez is one of Latin America's harshest critics of U.S.-style capitalism, which he calls a major cause of poverty. Venezuela has been selling fuel on preferential terms to countries across Latin America and the Caribbean, extending low-interest loans and accepting partial payment in goods ranging from bananas to sugar.

Critics said Delahunt should not be working so closely with Chávez, an outspoken leftist. Steve Johnson, a Latin American specialist at the conservative oriented Heritage Foundation, said "Meeting with the leader who calls himself a revolutionary populist is not something I'd like my congressman to be doing."

Representative Delahunt said "This is a humanitarian gesture," and that his constituents' needs for heating assistance trump any political points the Chavez administration can score. Asked if he was subverting State Department policy toward Chávez, Mr Delahunt said, "I don't work for Condoleezza Rice. I don't report to the State Department. I report to the people who elected me in the state of Massachusetts. I belong to an independent branch of government."

Over 10 percent of US oil imports come from Venezuela, and while Mr Chávez seeks to diversify his markets, the US remains his leading trade partner.

When the discounted oil arrives early December Citizens Energy will determine suitable recipients with the help of local organizations that serve the poor. 350 local dealers will then distribute three-fourths of the oil to local families.

The remaining quarter will be distributed or sold to homeless shelters, food banks, and low-income housing groups by MassEnergyConsumer Alliance. Larry Chretien, the nonprofit group's executive director says home heating oil prices are expected to increase by 30 percent to 50 percent this winter because of rising oil prices. The CITGO agreement could help ease the crunch on some families.


text:
File:ChrismasIslandDetentionCentre2004 Chilout.jpg

{{Non-free use rationale PHOTO of Vietnamese asylum seeker Kids in Christmas Island Detention (November 2004) http://www.chilout.org/news/KB_media_releases.html }}
 * Description = From Chilout {Children Out of Detention) Media Release. May 26, 2005
 * Source =
 * Article =
 * Portion =
 * Low_resolution =
 * Purpose =
 * Replaceability =


text:
Workplace reform campaign most expensive in Australian history

November 23, 2005

A senior Australian advertising executive says the Federal Government's campaign to promote its workplace changes is the most costly in Australian history. Harold Mitchell from Mitchell and Partners says the Howard Government spent $26 million on TV advertising in October. The figure is more than any other entity including retailing giant Coles Myer.

In October, 11,000 commercials were part of the campaign to sell its Industrial Relations (IR) reforms. Mr Mitchell said he could not recall a larger single monthly spending spree in Australian advertising history.

"There's never been a campaign in history as big as that," he said. "It followed of course the ACTU campaign which was something like, maybe one fifth of that size."

He said the Government was the second biggest advertiser in Australia this year, having spent an estimated $117 million from January to the end of October. Only the supermarket and department store group Coles Myer has spent more in the same period – $156 million. Coles Myer spent $19 million last month.

Of the Government's October advertising bill, $15 million went on TV ads, a 168 per cent increase on the bill for October 2004. The advertising blitz followed the ACTU campaign against the changes, which Mr Mitchell says came in at about one-fifth of the government's bill.

The Nielsen Media Research spokesman said the figures are estimates of the cost of placing the advertisements and did not include their production.

On top of the TV spots, the Federal government spent more than $20 million on outdoor and print advertising. Plus another $4 million to $5 million on a nationwide pamphlet mail-out.

At the current rate spending will overtake the record $211 million spent selling the Goods and Services Tax (GST) over four years, and leaves all Australian company spending on advertising in the shade. The Government has earmarked $55 million to the IR campaign.

The professor of marketing at Australian Graduate School of Management, John Roberts, said the intensity of the advertising had become counterproductive. He said people who disagreed with the policy simply had their feelings reinforced by the endless advertising, while others had become "habituated" by the deluge and ignored the ads.

"It's hard to believe they have done any research on this," he said. "There is this naive belief you get sometimes in management that if a campaign is not working properly you simply open the spigot a bit more, but it doesn't work that way."

Business groups have launched their own campaign supporting the changes too. Yet despite the spending on advertising, two polls this week attributed a sharp drop in the popularity of the Prime Minister, John Howard, and the Government, to the planned IR (WorkChoice) changes.

Australian Democrats workplace relations spokesman Andrew Murray "You just shouldn't as a government be advertising prior to legislation before the Senate. It's immoral," Senator Murray said.

Opposition public accountability spokesman Kelvin Thomson said the campaign had cost taxpayers $1.7 million a day but had flopped, with Australians unconvinced that they would be better off under the changes. "It is an obscene waste of $55 million of public money used to fund a highly political flop," Mr Thomson said.


text:
Chinese chemical plant explosion threatens water supply for major city

November 24, 2005

A large scale environmental accident is causing wide-spread disruptions to water supplies in Harbin, China after an accidental release of toxins two weeks ago at a chemical plant. Water supplies are being shipped in amidst a relative calm, Thursday. Local officials have suggested normal water supplies may resume in some form as early as Sunday.

An explosion at a workshop of the No. 101 Chemical Plant of the Jilin Petrochemical Company in Jilin City on November 13 resulted in the accidental release of benzene and benzene-like organic compounds, including nitrobenzene, into the Songhua River. The upstream position of the plant relative to the Chinese city of Harbin made the pollution a risk to the health of its populace; the solution of ceasing public water production will leave more than 3.8 million people without public drinking water for three or more days. Harbin, the capital of the neighboring Heilongjiang province, is located about 380km (230 miles) from the plant and is itself located near the middle of the 1,897 km long Songhua River–from which it derives the majority of its water supplies. Benzene is a carcinogen, and the levels initially released into the Songhua River were 108 times the national safety levels for the country. By November 21, the polluted area included roughly 80 kilometers of the Songhua River.

The State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) as well as local experts and officials have worked on a pollution-control campaign and emergency schemes have been launched by the two provincial governments to limit the effects of the environmental incidents. Jilin also quickly acted to block the further entry of the pollutants into the river and released large volumes of water from a reservoir in order to dilute them; at this time, Harbin added active carbon powders in quantities reaching 1,400 tons and more in order to purify the water. The densities of the benzene and nitrobenzene substances in the river near Jilin have dropped to levels within the state safety guidelines since the accidental release. The water that will pass through Harbin is expected to contain only small amounts of the toxic pollutants and to pass through Friday morning based upon its current speed. In preparation for the passage of these pollutants, the municipal government of Harbin has established an emergency medical care system composed of 15 hospitals to treat residents that may be exposed to contamination.

Zhang Dingbang, deputy secretary of the municipal government, said, at the first press conference since the incident that was held Wednesday, that Harbin is drilling 100 new wells in order to obtain 80,000 tons of underground water in addition to its current output from 918 wells of 320,000 tons every day. Nevertheless, thousand of tons of purified water have been provided by neighboring regions and enterprise donations, which will further increase this supply. Harbin residents have collected more than 300,000 tons of water as of Tuesday. Liu Yuzhu, a senior official with the municipal water supply and drainage corporation, has said that this supply is expected to provide for the daily average use of 18,600 tons per day for the three days required for the clear passage of the pollutants through the area.


text:
User talk:Muul.aim

Welcome
Muul.aim, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! - Brian McNeil / talk 21:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

title: User talk:Muul.aim


text:
Anti-war protesters defy new Texas laws

November 23, 2005

"Give me liberty or give me a ditch" was the sign being held by one protester in Crawford, Texas. A dozen war protesters were arrested Wednesday for camping near President Bush's ranch in defiance of new local bans on roadside camping and parking. The protests have been planned during President Bush's six day Thanksgiving visit to his ranch.

The protest was an act of civil disobedience, said Hadi Jawad, co-founder of the Crawford Peace House, "We want to challenge the encroachment of our civil rights". It was aimed to contest new regulations established by McLennan County commissioners banning parking and camping around the roads leading to President George W Bush's ranch. The constitutionality of these regulations, effected by a 3-2 vote in September, have been challenged in court by the Texas Civil Rights Project, and the U.S District for Waco refused their motion for a temporary restraining order over the enforcement of these new regulations while the case is heard. The new rules were established following the much larger protests led by Cindy Sheenan earlier this year.

Among the protestors were Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst and political activist, whose exposure of the Pentagon Papers brought to light the Nixon administration's attempt to "spin" the Vietnam War; Ann Wright, a senior US diplomat who resigned her post over the decision to invade Iraq; and an Iraq war veteran. Ellsberg was among those arrested.

The White House has refused to comment on the return of the protestors.

title: Anti-war protesters defy new Texas laws


text:
User talk:216.237.179.238

 * Ok. That happens because I used a template to send you the welcome, and that template is protected. If you want to edit your page just hit the big "edit this page" (instead of the smaller "edit" in the text) button at the top of the page. --Deprifry|+T+ 21:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

 * ah. ain't technology grand? (and you wonder why the mages died out...) 216.237.179.238 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:216.237.179.238


text:
Talk:Bush backtracks over legal status of alleged "Dirty Bomber" Jose Padilla

All (almost all?) U.S. prosecutions under terrorisim legislation have hit been targeted at the wrong people. Maybe this should be mentioned? Its not all Bush's fault if its a more fundamental & subtle flaw in the handling of supposed terrorist risks.
 * That'd be hard to prove, mainly because there isn't really enough complete statistics to prove any of the above. So I'd say leave it out, for accuracy's sake.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 22:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It would need to be cited, but the statistics were done at some point. It was just a matter of looking at the laws people were charge under.  However, I think this was a like a year ago, so I have no idea where it was, and there might have some legitimate charge in the meantime. Nyarlathotep 00:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the title is quite misleading or the article is severely inadequate. It actually never says that Bush changed his mind or that anyone in his administration did. Not charging someone with a crime is not the same as saying they are innocent. I think it is wrong to assume that Bush is "Backtracking" just because Padilla wasn't charged with every crime of which he was accused. So either fix the title, or include a quote which demonstrates the title's validity.

65.27.81.16, what is misleading? Padilla was first classified as an enemy combatant by US President Bush after Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that a plot to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb had been foiled and charged Padilla as the acting agency of the plot. Then, recently, President Bush ordered Padilla to be transfered to the custody of the Justice Department, where prosecution proceeded with charges of a criminal nature instead. A quote is not necessary, and both of these events are described in the article text if you care to re-read it for them. Backtracking in regard to the classification of Padilla has occurred, and though I had no input on the creation of the title of this article, it is supported and is justified on that basis; Bush's position that Padilla was an enemy combatant led him to first declare Padilla that rather than not and leave him with classification as a suspect has been replaced with his new position that Padilla is a suspect rather than an enemy combatant, he is currently charged with but not convicted of the conspiracy charges in the indictment, if found guilty he will become a criminal. --Opalus 03:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Padilla's legal status has changed - albeit temporarily. As the article states, his status, for the purpose of this trial, is that of an "ordinary" criminal defendent. Whether Bush possesses a mind or the capacity to change it, in the words of a fellow editor "cannot be verified". Doldrums 06:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


text:
Further details about Bush-Blair memo stopped

November 26, 2005

The U.K. attorney general Lord Goldsmith has warned British media that further reporting of details from an allegedly leaked memo about a dispute between Tony Blair and George Bush "could be in breach of section 5 of the Official Secrets Act." The Guardian quoted an unnamed Downing Street source as saying that the decision whether to prosecute was "entirely up to the attorney general", who intended to "draw a line in the sand" to stop further leaks.

Jeremy Dear, secretary of National Union of Journalists, called it "a heavy-handed attempt to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. It is a double attack on the freedom of the press and freedom of information." Mr. Dear continued, "These sort of attempts to stifle uncomfortable revelations printed in a newspaper, which is only carrying out its proper duty to inform the British public, does the government of what is supposed to be a democracy no credit whatsoever."

According to The Guardian this "is believed to be the first time the Blair government has threatened newspapers in this way". The British government has before obtained court injunctions against newspapers, but never prosecuted editors for publishing contents of leaked documents.

Former British defence minister Peter Kilfoyle earlier called for the full text of the memo to be published. "I believe that Downing Street ought to publish this memo in the interests of transparency, given that much of the detail appears to be in the public domain". He added "If it was the case that President Bush wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in what is after all a friendly country, it speaks volumes and it raises questions about subsequent attacks that took place on the press that wasn't embedded with coalition forces."

Tuesday, the Daily Mirror, a British tabloid, ran a front page story under the headline "Bush plot to bomb his ally", citing the memo in question (see previous story). In response to the attorney general, the Daily Mirror said it had "essentially agreed to comply". Boris Johnson, MP for Henley and editor of The Spectator magazine, has condemned the Attorney General's actions and offered to risk jail by printing the memo if he receives it within the next few days.

The Washington Post cited an unnamed senior Washington diplomat saying that the Bush remark as reported by the Daily Mirror "sounds like one of the president's one-liners that is meant as a joke." But, the diplomat said, "it was foolish for someone to write it down, and now it will be a story for days."

The meeting between Bush and Blair occurred on April 16, 2004, at the height of the US assault on Fallujah. According to some reports, al-Jazeera was the only major news organisation providing eyewitness reports and video footage from within the city at the time.

There is a history of enmity between senior U.S. officials and al-Jazeera. Vice President Dick Cheney has said that the network ran the risk of being labeled "Osama [bin Laden]'s outlet to the world", and Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld has called its coverage "outrageous" and "inexcusably biased".

Al-Jazeera's news bureau in Kabul was destroyed by a U.S. missile during the aerial assault on the Taliban. The Pentagon later stated it did not know that the network's offices were in the building. Al-Jazeera's Baghdad bureau was also hit by US forces, resulting in the death of an al-Jazeera journalist during the April 2003 assault on Baghdad. The Pentagon claimed U.S. troops were responding to enemy fire from the building.


text:
User:Nyarlathotep

I'm a mathematics postdoc at the University of Manchester, England, but visiting Universite Paris 7. My research area is model theoretic algebra (specifically group theory). I'm spend most of my time doing research & trying to learn French, but I find a bit of time for drinking and wikinews. ;)

Views
I consider myself a transhumanist. I do not consider myself "left wing", as I adore Peter Singer's definition of the left, i.e. those who care about reducing suffering, but I just don't feel this is an "eternal" moral principle. I even see memetic evolutionary success as the only basis for any such "eternal" principle. In practice, you will find me quite far left on cultural issues, but not necissarily on economic ones, although I'm strongly anti-monopolist and anti-intellectual property.

fr:Utilisateur:Nyarlathotep

title: User:Nyarlathotep


text:
Talk:Chinese chemical plant explosion threatens water supply for major city

benzene as in the title or benzine as in para 2?

R7 01:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)