text:
Talk:Bomb left outside police station in Northern Ireland

I believe this article seems to be fully sourced and ready for publish, it might need to be checked for copyedits. Maybe the template should be rather than  Mrchris (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied from user talk pages
I made changes, are they acceptable. Mrchris (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additions, really makes the article more interactive. NickyJ101 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I added 2 quotes, is there anything else that is needed in the article? Mrchris (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't think so, looks pretty informative and full to me, just need to wait until after the review NickyJ101 (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It could take some time, it can be frustrating but nice article i think Mrchris (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved conversation here. Mrchris (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Kajunior

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

title: User talk:Kajunior


text: User talk:D-ayse-mota

title: User talk:D-ayse-mota


text: User talk:Kedmajns

title: User talk:Kedmajns


text:
Portuguese writer José Saramago dies at 87

June 18, 2010

Portuguese writer, winner of the 1998 Nobel Prize for Literature, died today at his home in at 87.

As Saramago Foundation reported, "today, June 18, José Saramago has died at 12:30 at his home in Lanzarote, at 87 years old, as the aftermath of a multiorgan failure, after a prolonged illness." They added that "the writer died with his family, passing out quietly and peacefully."

Saramago was born in November 16, 1922 in the village of. He was a journalist, writer, designer, editor and translator. He published his first work, Terra do Pecado, in 1947. Some of his most important works are ', ' and .

His body will be cremated on Sunday in.


text: User talk:JJJkkk

title: User talk:JJJkkk


text: Comments:Former Australian police media director Stephen Linnell's perjury conviction quashed


text: User talk:Acsb1991

title: User talk:Acsb1991


text: User talk:Limanoa

title: User talk:Limanoa


text: User talk:Ivan Dembicki

title: User talk:Ivan Dembicki


text: User talk:Onlyndausa

title: User talk:Onlyndausa


text:
Thread:Comments:Warren Buffett to host world's most expensive lunch/Blah/reply (9)

In other words, it's not quite cash in his wallet or sitting in his bank account waiting to be spent. So what?


text: Talk:Portuguese writer José Saramago dies at 87


text: Comments:Portuguese writer José Saramago dies at 87


text: User talk:Wranglergirl47

title: User talk:Wranglergirl47


text:
Comments:Ronnie Lee Gardner executed by Utah firing squad

This guy was a real scumbag he was responsible for multiple killings and attempted killings. He deserved alot more bullets than he received.

Comments from feedback form - "Sad it is. He was my good frie..."
Sad it is. He was my good friend's uncle. :/ Sad sad stuff. No one even knew the whole story. May he rest in peace. —97.117.83.126 (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "It's good news that they are u..."
It's good news that they are using execution. The death penalty should be used more often to kill those airheaded, bloody, stupid morons and idiots. —Kayau (talk · contribs) 08:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Please correct this incorrect ..."
Please correct this incorrect statement. Thank you

This is the first execution the United States has carried out since John Albert Taylor on January 26th, 1996 —174.59.113.106 (talk) 09:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Execution
IMO it would be more preferable to be excecuted via firing squad. I wouldn't want the government to inject me. --76.211.234.35 (talk) 16:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that; given the choice, I'd take the firing squad too.

Comments from feedback form - "It's very sick to strap a man ..."
It's very sick to strap a man to a chair and kill him. I feel sad for this brutal act. Vengeance is the justice of the barbarian. —77.56.120.201 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That goes without saying; he's not paying back his debt to society, because nobody gains anything from a corpse, except maybe the funeral industry.

And somehow it's not torture to have him sit in a metal enclosure for the rest of his life instead. Sure, you have the occasional glimpse of freedom, but otherwise you're still behind bars, with no chance of getting out. That, and he CHOSE this. If we take the choice from a man and only give them life imprisonment, does he still have free will?ArchabacteriaNematoda (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Something Special
The death penalty should be reserved for those very special monsters in our world, who just don't deserve the air they breathe... 165.228.245.201 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Tragic ending to a tragetic hu..."
Tragic ending to a tragetic human being... —H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk  09:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Death Penalties must NEVER be ..."
Death Penalties must NEVER be outlawed. —121.7.140.214 (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Byars

title: User talk:Byars


text: Comments:Hamas dampens Palestinian-Israeli truce


text: User talk:Bablukhan

title: User talk:Bablukhan


text: User talk:Popa Alexandru

title: User talk:Popa Alexandru


text:
User:NickyJ101

England vs. Algeria in the World Cup 2010
18 June 2010, 21:04
 * Another match of Group C was played today between Algeria and England. The match was uneventful and rather dull in most places. However the closing twenty minutes showed many promising moments for England with several kicks at goal, though very few were on target. The atmosphere at the Stadium was amazing with the National Anthems of both countries being sung continually. However, the game ended 0-0 resulting in England's second draw. For England to qualify, they must beat Slovenia

Sarkozy in UK to mark historic de Gaulle war broadcast
18 June 2010, 17:23
 * Nicolas Sarkozy visited the UK today to celebrate the 70th anniversary since Charles de Gaulle fled to London in 1940 and made his war broadcast to rally the French against Nazi Germany. The French president and the Prince of Wales have laid wreaths at the statue of Charles de Gaulle in London.

Bomb left outside police station in Northern Ireland
18 June 2010 18:22
 * A viable bomb was left inside a van parked outside a local police station in the small village of Aughnacloy, County Tyrone in Northern Ireland. Army experts carried out a controlled explosion and have been examining the vehicle which was left at about 10:00pm last night local time.

title: User:NickyJ101


text: User talk:Nazmulhaque84

title: User talk:Nazmulhaque84


text:
User talk:Himyaosui

This is your last/only warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikinews. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, since testing in articles will be reverted quickly. Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 23:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Himyaosui


text:
User talk:99of9

Paralympic swim world records tumble at Australian championships
99of9, Nice story! I agree with Pi that it was well written and I really appreciated the overview on a topic that is not seen as much in the mainstream media. Crtew (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. --99of9 (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. :)
Thanks for the help. :) Much appreciated. Hopefully, that should make things easier for the reviewers. :) --LauraHale (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

....as is this!!
--Bddpaux (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. --99of9 (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:99of9


text: User talk:Pudina

title: User talk:Pudina


text: User talk:Snottywong

title: User talk:Snottywong


text: User talk:Metalgirlwoot

title: User talk:Metalgirlwoot


text: User talk:Sayuem

title: User talk:Sayuem


text:
User talk:Maargiro~enwikinews

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 Maargiro. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Maargiro~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 23:18, 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) 06:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maargiro~enwikinews


text: User talk:Elli2hot

title: User talk:Elli2hot


text:
User talk:87.194.95.208

Diego Grez return fire 01:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:87.194.95.208


text: User talk:386-DX

title: User talk:386-DX


text: User talk:Lauryn Ashby

title: User talk:Lauryn Ashby


text: User talk:Chinademoc

title: User talk:Chinademoc


text: User talk:Vtarahman

title: User talk:Vtarahman


text: User talk:Alexandre * UHU

title: User talk:Alexandre * UHU


text: User talk:Farid munfaridin

title: User talk:Farid munfaridin


text:
Talk:Car bomb attack in Iraqi town, at least two dead and 45 injured

No verb in title
Come on guys: there needs to be a verb in title. Also, no "and." Something like Car bomb explodes, leaving 2 dead, 45 injured in Iraqi town." Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm going to add that this shouldn't be moved - the title isn't so bad that we ought to change it, given the mess that this creates. However, it really should have been done pre-publish. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 09:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points, both. :) -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


text: Comments:Car bomb attack in Iraqi town, at least two dead and 45 injured


text: Talk:Sarkozy in UK to mark historic de Gaulle war broadcast


text: User talk:Cerian

title: User talk:Cerian


text: User talk:StoogeBrain

title: User talk:StoogeBrain


text: User talk:Mistaj

title: User talk:Mistaj


text: User talk:Tonysip

title: User talk:Tonysip


text:
Thread:Comments:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology/Comments from feedback form - "Great article...would love to ..."/reply (5)

Eliminating religion is impossible. Even Atheists technically have a religion based on science. And you, to me, are a fanatic proselytizer for your religion. Don't expect everyone to believe exactly as you do, and nothing beyond that. Besides, could you really stand to have hundreds of people exactly like you in the world?


text:
Thread:Comments:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology/Comments from feedback form - "Great article...would love to ..."/reply (6)

Atheism is not a matter of belief. By the word itself, it is a lack of such.


text: User talk:Hc16352

title: User talk:Hc16352


text:
User talk:FOrtheemperor

--InfantGorilla (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:FOrtheemperor


text: User talk:Mulp

title: User talk:Mulp


text: User talk:A0890200793

title: User talk:A0890200793


text: User talk:Drs. rudi wirasasmita

title: User talk:Drs. rudi wirasasmita


text: User talk:Georgerubensmith

title: User talk:Georgerubensmith


text: User talk:Shellcod3

title: User talk:Shellcod3


text: User talk:Truvor Ruirikovich

title: User talk:Truvor Ruirikovich


text: User talk:Mujibur rohman

title: User talk:Mujibur rohman


text: User talk:Awegbaweafwefa

title: User talk:Awegbaweafwefa


text: User talk:Debreceni Mihály

title: User talk:Debreceni Mihály


text: User talk:Hamxa369

title: User talk:Hamxa369


text: User talk:Sicknote1

title: User talk:Sicknote1


text: User talk:Popstarchou

title: User talk:Popstarchou


text: User talk:Roots80

title: User talk:Roots80


text: User talk:Vintagedon

title: User talk:Vintagedon


text: User talk:Rahulsivan07

title: User talk:Rahulsivan07


text: User talk:Arvin36

title: User talk:Arvin36


text:
Thread:Comments:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology/Comments from feedback form - "Great article...would love to ..."/reply (7)

At the risk of attracting a hail of bullets from McNeil, I'll say it's not religion itself I have a problem with. It's the way people like to try and force it upon you (and each other). In particular, some people force babies and young children to be members of their chosen religion. That's not your bloody choice. Wait until the kid's old enough to decide. If yes, then fine. Don't expect me to take much interest, I certainly won't actively approve - but I will defend his or her right to do such.

Were it my responsibility, then yes, religious discrimmination would in most cases face increased sentencing powers - but equally, doing such things to your children as baptism etc when they can't possibly understand the concepts behind it would also be an offence.


text:
User talk:Chema~enwikinews

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 Chema. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Chema~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) 06:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chema~enwikinews


text: User talk:Hemshweta

title: User talk:Hemshweta


text: User talk:Isal3

title: User talk:Isal3


text:
Thread:Comments:Warren Buffett to host world's most expensive lunch/If you would pay this out of admiration, they you're already a failed disciple...

Since you're already going against his most important teaching: "milk the fools for all they will give, and then some." Which he's masterfully demonstrating here.

But no, I don't think admiration is the motivation. And since it seems neither is publicity, that leaves only foolishness indeed? It's eBay after all, anything can happen...


text: User talk:Manogna shobha

title: User talk:Manogna shobha


text: User talk:Fathhkv

title: User talk:Fathhkv


text: User talk:Soul41

title: User talk:Soul41


text: User talk:Dr. Wael Tawfik

title: User talk:Dr. Wael Tawfik


text: User talk:RobinvO

title: User talk:RobinvO


text: User talk:Klepkoilla

title: User talk:Klepkoilla


text: User talk:MorganHarmon

title: User talk:MorganHarmon


text: User talk:Pigg888

title: User talk:Pigg888


text: User talk:Vtobasaju

title: User talk:Vtobasaju


text: User talk:Naveenreddy61

title: User talk:Naveenreddy61


text: User talk:BalrogGamer

title: User talk:BalrogGamer


text:
User talk:75.47.129.69

Benny the mascot (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, your 3-hour block has been lifted to make way forthe 6-hour block. Therefore, you really are blocked for 6 hours, not 9. Just FYI... Benny the mascot (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sooo...there has been a disagreement over the duration of your block, but in the end the six-hour block still stands. You have about 1.5 hours left until you're free to edit again. Be good now... ;) Benny the mascot (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:75.47.129.69


text:
Oxford elects poetry professor by email vote

June 19, 2010

was announced yesterday to have won the election for the post of at the University of Oxford. Hill, who won by a large majority, is the 44th man to hold the post, but the first one to have been elected by an email-based voting system.

Hill, a graduate of, has won many awards for his poems and other writing. He was described by The Daily Telegraph as "one of the most distinguished contemporary English language poets" and by the former  as "one of the two or three best poets writing in English". He obtained 1,156 votes with his nearest rival,, receiving 353. In all, 2,500 votes were cast for the ten candidates.

Speaking after the result was announced, Dr Seamus Perry from the university's English Faculty Board said that he was "simply delighted that a poet of Geoffrey Hill's eminence has emerged victorious." He added that Hill was "pleased" with the result, particularly as it came on his 78th birthday. Motion applauded Hill's success, saying that Oxford was "lucky to have him." Horovitz said that Hill would "probably give great lectures but they won't be anything different", and suggested that Hill, "like his poetry, won't be that accessible."

The 2010 election follows the controversy of 2009, which saw candidate withdraw before the contest after anonymous letters were sent to more than 100 Oxford academics giving details of an allegation of sexual harassment made against him in 1982. The eventual winner,, resigned after a few days when it emerged that she had briefed student journalists about the allegations. Perry said yesterday that Hill's election showed that "the chair did emerge intact from the scuffle."

This year's election was not without incident either. An eleventh candidate, Paula Clare, withdrew from the process complaining about pro-Hill coverage in the Oxford Gazette, the official journal of the university. She said that the process was "seriously flawed" and favoured Hill. The 2010 election was the first to allow voting by email: previously, voters had to visit Oxford and cast their votes in person. The 2,500 votes in this election compares to less than 500 cast in the 2009 contest, as against a total potential electorate (all the graduates and academics of the university) in the region of 300,000.

The post of Professor of Poetry dates from 1708, and former holders include and. It is said to be "the most prestigious" job in poetry after the poet laureate. The professor has to give three lectures during the year and to deliver every other year a speech giving thanks to benefactors during the ceremony for the presentation of honorary degrees. There is no obligation to write poetry for the university during the five-year tenure of the post, although past holders have taken steps to encourage student poetry. Hill will be paid 6,901 per year.


text:
User talk:ArchabacteriaNematoda

Tempodivalse [talk]  12:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:ArchabacteriaNematoda


text: User talk:Ismokecigars

title: User talk:Ismokecigars


text:
Comments:Queen Elizabeth visits Turkey

Comments from feedback form - "Well done. Perhaps a little l..."
Well done. Perhaps a little longer, however. Did she do anything other than give the speech? —207.161.95.37 (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Comments:Queen Elizabeth visits Turkey


text: User talk:Jdz1961

title: User talk:Jdz1961


text: User talk:Amandinaha

title: User talk:Amandinaha


text:
User talk:Nascar1996

{|
 * style="border:solid blue; -moz-border-radius: 5px; background:white; width:60%; padding:5px; vertical-align: top;" |

1 -  2

Nascar1996's talk page '' Click here to leave a new message. Old or resolved conversations will be moved to the latest archive. ''

o/
Be well. --Pi zero (talk) 05:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nascar1996


text: User talk:Aubrey Street

title: User talk:Aubrey Street


text: User talk:Aishwaryaharuray

title: User talk:Aishwaryaharuray


text: User talk:Joymjibin

title: User talk:Joymjibin


text:
Thread:Comments:Portuguese writer José Saramago dies at 87/RIP Saramago

You'll be missed.


text: User talk:Mathpianist93

title: User talk:Mathpianist93


text: User talk:RajithaRodrigo

title: User talk:RajithaRodrigo


text:
Thread:Comments:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology/Comments from feedback form - "Great article...would love to ..."/reply (8)

Criticism generally comes in the form of focus on the management aspects of the organization, not so-called religious beliefs.


text: User talk:SwampyQ2

title: User talk:SwampyQ2


text: User talk:Ajadi razaq

title: User talk:Ajadi razaq


text: User talk:LuxLaqueus

title: User talk:LuxLaqueus


text: User talk:Shreyas4girl

title: User talk:Shreyas4girl


text: User talk:Mhplrathore

title: User talk:Mhplrathore


text:
Thread:Comments:International Committee of the Red Cross condemns Gaza blockade/International Committee of the Red Cross condemns Gaza blockade/reply (11)

So all palestinians are collectively guilty by association and they can blame only themself if they get killed. Good luck convincing the rest of the world. And don't get me wrong, the palestinians wrongs are a mile long but saying they're the only one responsible for this mess while Israel would just love to live in peace and it's completely innocent is really naive or just plain badfaith.


text:
Thread:Comments:'Bloody Sunday Inquiry' publishes report into British Army killing of activists in Northern Ireland/Woops/reply

There are lot of reasons, and almost none good. There is the fact that military inquiries are always about saving the face of the army and not about finding the truth. There is the idea that admitting the governement would damage the "honor " of the country. There is the idea that only "the others" are guilty while your side is always innocent and anything that says this to not be true is enemy propaganda. And so on and on...


text: User talk:Huskygal12

title: User talk:Huskygal12


text: User talk:Chanda abbas

title: User talk:Chanda abbas


text: User talk:Ayman M S

title: User talk:Ayman M S


text: User talk:Mnsdg

title: User talk:Mnsdg


text: User talk:Denny-Mat

title: User talk:Denny-Mat


text: User talk:Shakilur

title: User talk:Shakilur


text: User talk:Carl cox

title: User talk:Carl cox


text: User talk:PunkRocker1994

title: User talk:PunkRocker1994


text:
User talk:76.232.77.196

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  17:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:76.232.77.196


text: User talk:Salahmouhamade

title: User talk:Salahmouhamade


text:
Talk:Russia's main airport faces high danger from dump birds

Interwiki fix
Can someone please fix Hungarian interwiki from current renamed version to actual page entitled hu:Egy illegális szeméttelep veszélyezteti a seremetyevói reptér működését ? Thanks. --Ssr (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


text: User talk:Caracatua

title: User talk:Caracatua


text: User talk:Lthiagol

title: User talk:Lthiagol


text: User talk:Maigariben

title: User talk:Maigariben


text:
User talk:Kingman417~enwikinews

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 Kingman417. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Kingman417~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:Kingman417~enwikinews


text: User talk:Tanysoto

title: User talk:Tanysoto


text: User talk:Zhanxixi

title: User talk:Zhanxixi


text: User talk:Ojaswi74

title: User talk:Ojaswi74


text: User talk:Hamidi Suud

title: User talk:Hamidi Suud


text: User talk:Ochianab

title: User talk:Ochianab


text: Talk:Oxford elects poetry professor by email vote


text: Comments:Oxford elects poetry professor by email vote


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2010/June

Original reporting and verifiability
After our recent fiasco involving Matthewedwards, it's been brought up that our current standards for accepting original reporting are quite lax in terms of verifiability. All a trusted user has to do is slap a comment on the talk page saying "I talked with this bloke" or "I was present at this event", and anything he puts into the article will be unequivocally accepted as true even though there really is no way to back it up. This is especially true for email interviews; all we require now is that the email be forwarded, which really doesn't prove anything.

Of course, our current reporters are working for the good of the project and wouldn't think of doing this, but what I'm saying is that it's not difficult for a user wishing Wikinews harm to create and have published falsehoods.

So, to get to the point: My suggestion is that we require some sort of verifiability standards for original information. If you say you attended an event, you must upload videos or pictures to help back it up, if you had a person-to-person interview, you should provide audio as well as the transcript. Open to thoughts... Tempodivalse [talk]  17:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 * For emails, we could scoop@wikinewsie.org as the reply-to address, so scoop gets a copy of the original email, without the chance for the reporter to edit it first? Δεν δοδγε  τ\c 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I seriously think you should go away and think long, and hard, before this turns into another dispute that drives away contributors. A cooling-off period prior to having this discussion seems in order. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with a cooling off period. discussing policy changes well everyone is all riled up about something is only going to cause reactionary type policies. How about we wait a week, and then start a discussion on if any reforms need to be made to OR and/or accreditation policy. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -Shrug- Actually, people have been talking about this for some time now, it's not just because of this recent mess. Although I wouldn't be opposed to a cool-down period so we can think more rationally. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have half a mind to go create an account using a random wifi connection somewhere (ie, not my IP) and post a non-libelous fake interview with someone quasi-famous, just for demonstrative purposes. Careful with publishing OR from now on, you never know when it might be me setting up my test of the review system:P. The reason it hasn't happened yet is the same reason there aren't many Mac viruses: so far we're simply too small, insignificant, and piddly for the trolls and assholes out there to bother with. I think we all hope that one day that isn't the case;). Gopher65talk 18:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I support Dendodge's idea, that's a good way to verify it. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Revdelete
I think we should discuss the use revdelete. I've been noticing its use to hide spam revisions, and I really wonder why we are doing that. The history of the page serves as a record of what happened, there is no harm with having spam on it. The spammers get no benefit from it being in the history, and keeping it there preserves a sense of transparency. I personally think we should only use revdelete in circumstances where there is a good reason for the masses not to be able to access the revision. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need to be as transparent as possible. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yeah, I concur. The only really pressing reason I'd see for using the function is to hide personal information or maybe obscene usernames. Spam doesn't seem like something one needs to oversight, seems like it would be hidden enough in the page history. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I removed it to prevent looking at/linking to the history and getting spam, mainly on the logic that if that was the only revision we'd delete. I'm not at all opposed to a policy prohibiting this - I was thinking as I did it that we really need to decide when we will and won't use the feature. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sports Prefixes
Myself and user have had a bit of disagreement about what prefixes to use for sports articles. I originally wanted to use "2010 Stanley Cup Finals:" and "2010 NBA Finals:," whereas Fox wanted to prefix them "Ice Hockey:" and "Basketball:" respectively. It has been my experience with Wikinews that these more specific prefix are acceptable, if not preferred. However, being trained in journalism and AP Style in America may bias me, as NBA or Stanley cup are synonymous with a certain sport. Looking across the pond and coverage of the NBA Finals from the BBC does not mention the term basketball once in the story. The BBC article is under the basketball category of the Sport site, but you would only know that if you are familiar with the BBC Sport layout.

Articles in question are: Stanley Cup Game 1, Stanley Cup Game 2, Stanley Cup Game 3 and NBA Finals Game 1.

Any thoughts on this? —Calebrw (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, Calebrw, titles should be descriptive enough, but Basketball and Ice Hockey on the titles sound extra-weird. By my side, I have written just one article on sports, Rodeo:_Cristóbal_Cortina_and_Víctor_Vergara_win_Chile_Championship, but I named the Championship/league, that is good too in my opinion. --Diego Grez return fire 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I've written two, Rodeo's and Chile_announces_official_list_of_players_for_South_Africa_Football_World_Cup. --Diego Grez return fire 19:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What about "Football"? In the US that's football, in the rest of the world that's soccer. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 19:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I think we should make the sport clear in the title, and preferably text too. I doubt many people outside of North America will know what the "NBA" or "NFL" is; we're writing for an international audience, whereas the BBC page you linked to is intended for a more local audience. (after edit conflict: well, don't we usually call "soccer" football, and gridiron "American football"? that seems pretty straightforward ...) Tempodivalse [talk]  19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * About the "Football" difference - the vast majority of the world will call American football just that and the word "football" is generally associated (no pun intended) with soccer. Fox (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I obviously think, where the sport IS NOT specifically mentioned in the title (e.g. Manager Benitez parts company with Liverpool Football Club explicitly mentions "football", England defeats Australia and wins 2010 Twenty20 Cricket World Cup explicitly mentions "cricket") that you SHOULD at the very least include a prefix to indicate what sport it is. You can't expect the whole world to know what NBA is, what NFL is, what the FA Cup is, what Twenty20 is, what the Stanley Cup is... Fox (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I should also note that the BBC is pretty bad at assuming people have knowledge of its layout. Fox (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't think it matters much. The sport should be generally guessable from the title, but as to if it uses a prefix, I think that should be up to the author of the article. There are plenty of sports articles with prefixes, and plenty without. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I really, really dislike this prefix idea. Use of a colon in a title should be a last resort. Starting to use prefixes has that tendency to lead to unmanageably long titles for articles.
 * While bearing in mind that titles cannot ever be reused,please try and keep them concise, but descriptive. Yes, a challenging balancing act; the project is better for it and regular readers will get used to it. There is little lost if abbreviations such as NBA are used and the fact that it is about sport can be readily inferred from the title.
 * I never look at the sports page in newspapers, or on the BBC site; those seeking such will quickly learn where to look for such on Wikinews.
 * Remember, your title is - to some extent - an advert for the article. The flip-side is that it is a caution for those such as myself who have zero interest in sports journalism. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections
Well, another year has come and gone, and the ArbCom elections will be rolling around soon. While emotions are still charged from the recent, and unresolved, Matthew Edwards scandal, and it would probably be best to wait until people cool down, I think we should start thinking about this soon. Last year we were late, and the elections were held in August, but I'd like to propose that we roll them back to July, as has been done for the past three years. This is partly because of Brianmc's resignation, so that we can get a sixth seat back more quickly.

As far as schedule is concerned, I'd propose opening things up for nominations in about a week's time, and hold the elections themselves about a month later, for a two-week period (as is current practise). IMHO, we'll need a longer nomination period as it appears several users currently on ArbCom will not be standing again, so we need time to scout out more candidates so people will have a better choice on whom to vote for.

Meanwhile, would there be any user willing to take on the duty of election judge? We'll need at least two.

Open to thoughts ... Tempodivalse [talk]  13:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I propose that we reduce the number of committeemen to 5. That removes the possibility of a tie. Second, I would like to volunteer as election judge, as long as training/orientation really isn't that hard... Benny the mascot (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mm, yeah, that's an interesting thought. It's actually been discussed before, and some people were concerned that having five members would make it too much of a cabal and exclusive, too much power concentrated in too few hands. I do agree though that an odd number is better; if anything, we should increase it to seven seats. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From my experience as a clerk on en-WP ArbCom the even number versus odd number often becomes a moot point due to reclusions or inactivity. I appreciate that ArbCom here is a whole kettle of fish and feel strongly neither one way nor another and therefore I also -shrug- à la Tempodivalse. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

-- I think just the opposite for the timeframe. We should wait longer, not sooner. Especially due to current incidents, more time should be allowed for everything to settle down. At least August, perhaps September. No harm is likely to come from having one less committee member for a short period of time. -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * September is probably excessive, I don't imagine this mess dragging on for so long. In any case, I'd suggest we just "play it by ear"; if tempers have settled down within a week or so, we can consider posting up nominations; if not, wait a bit more. Tempodivalse [talk]  14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No I think that would be way too soon. We should most definitely wait at least a month before starting anything. There is no rush. -- Cirt (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cirt. As far as I am aware, the ArbCom isn't exactly overwhelmed with cases to deal with and the loss of one member, whilst extremely regrettable, doesn't bring its ability to function to a grinding halt. Of course should the ArbCom resign en masse before September arrives that would change things. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -shrug- Fine with me either way, we can host them in August. True, there's not exactly any rush or pressure for a sixth seat. Tempodivalse [talk]
 * ArbCom terms end on July 31, though. If we hold the elections in August (which already kinda violates the policy on WN:ARBCOM), we will have no ArbCom for a full month. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, then perhaps end of July would be best. -- Cirt (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I was under the impression that the seats expired on August 31. If it's July, then yes, definitely hold elections then. How about July 17-31 as an election date, and start accepting nominations whenever we feel the drama here has subsided sufficiently? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tempodivalse (talk • contribs)
 * Perhaps let's not accept nominations until July 1. -- Cirt (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<-July 1-14 for nominations and question, July 15-16 for questions, and July 17-31 for voting. Does that work? Griffinofwales (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about July 1-17 for nominations, July 17-31 for voting and questions? IIRC this is the way we've done it previously. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think three stages would be better. Why do we need two weeks for noms anyways? IMO, the questions stage is by far the most important. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO we need the extra nomination time to scout out more potential candidates; right now we have only five people standing for six seats, if we want any sort of choice on the ballot, then we'll need to get three or more additional candidates. I agree questions are important, but former practise has been to allow them only after the start of the vote (although I wouldn't be opposed to allowing them throughout both nomination and voting periods). Tempodivalse [talk]  13:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that would work. Griffinofwales (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You want I should set up the page based on WN:ACE08, boss? Also, I'll take up election judge if you want 2 of 'em. --Thunderhead (t - e - c) 22:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Intention not to restand

 * I will say it here as it is about as good as anywhere: I have no desire to restand for ArbCom. The recent infighting leads me to believe that any future case would be a mess... Well, it would be a mess by definition or it wouldn't be at ArbCom, but you know what I mean. The key issue, for me, is what happens in terms of general interaction between community members from now on; that is something I will watch closely. I always thought of this as a place where we might be blunt or even rude from time to time, but we'd get the job done and we'd think no less of each other for it. If need be, things said will be retracted and moved on from. We seem to be moving away from that - if so, I may no longer be an ideal Arbitrator. I may re-run in the future; I am capable of diplomacy to those who are responsive to it - but I will want to see exactly where we go before I know if I can offer anything to ArbCom or not. I probably can - but I will not run the risk of needing to bow out halfway through.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I interpret this as similar reasoning to my own; Wikinews was a community where we took the job seriously, but never ourselves. This seems to no longer be the case. I do not know if the project can get back to where it was; I hoped to get the contributor base increased without careening headlong into the same sort of nonsense that plagues controversial Wikipedia topics. As news, there is inevitably always going to be that risk of topics being controversial; and, those where we can do the best coverage, are the most controversial. The aftermath of "The Matthew Edwards Incident" does not seem like the same project I've poured five years of my life into. Should I stay involved? Not unless a lot of people up their game and stop treating this like a junior school project. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I can't make up your mind for you in terms of the community as it currently stands. In terms of quality, the other thing I've noticed you griping about - I'm currently typing out a new section to this page. There's a massive, obvious and easily resolved problem under our nose on that one - and it isn't about the problems with Reviewers themselves. It's a systematic error. So; I think we can save this place on that front. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would totally and utterly hate to hand the nay-sayers the victory of seeing Wikinews die. You're someone I have a gut feeling cares enough, is smart enough, uncompromising enough, and flat-out bloody-minded enough to help keep the project moving upwards.
 * I cite a quote below, and I must, frankly, say that if you do not find it reasonable, and one you would live - and die - by, you should not be involved with this project in any way:

""The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903) "Maxims for Revolutionists""

 * Is that unreasonable enough for everyone in the cheap seats rattling their jewellery? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I sahll do what I can. I don't have a freighter to sail to Gaza, I can't dash into Sudan with a splinter cell to storm al-Bashir's pad. I have only words to fight with - and I intend to fight on with them. Wikinews isn't dead yet and it isn't going to die anytime soon - not if I can bloody well help it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to sighting; No more Autosight; Grab the bull by the horns and ride
Relult: Implemented June 14 We are having something of a slide in article quality. This requires two things to be done: The first is that we must face the fact that we have to tighten up our standards for the Reviewer right. Some Reviewers will have to go. But that isn't what I'm on about here.
 * Bug filed 13 June 2010: 23948 — μ 20:15, June 13 2010 (UTC)

Currently, whenever a Reviewer edits a page already sighted, it is Autosighted. This is a very serious problem. An article is reviewed for a reason: Everyone buggers it up from time to time, sometimes very badly. Factcheck and neutrality, in that order, are the most important aspects of a review (not counting copyright, which usually isn't a problem with established writers - though even that can be ballsed up accidentally, on a single line or so). However, once an article is reviewed, it is perfectly legitimate - indeed, vital - for users to add updates, or to expand with more information.

Right now, it gets autosighted and that's that. There is a method of undoing the sighting of a page; it's tucked away quietly. This will not do. If new info can get heaped in, drastically changing an article, then why did we review it in the first place? Such new material must be reviewed. It may be, for major changes, we need to seriously look at a new mechanism for signing off that the work has been done - maybe a trimmed-down version of the review template, and an entire subpage on each and every article to stick these on. Non-content edits should not need this, but everything else would. Non-content edits would be anything acceptable to archived article; all new information or major copyedits would need looked at closer. We could easily reduce the requirements to drop factchecking for diffs where no actual new info is added, but neutrality for major copyedits should be double-checked.

Regardless of wether we go that far, we certainly can't continue in this vein. I want autosight gone entirely, at least for mainspace. Instead, that 'review this revision' tickbox appears. Where Autosight would usually just do it, now it would be ticked by default - but easily unchecked. Edit conflicts or editing the draft would cause it to display as now - it will appear, unchecked.

Why didn't we do it at the time? Why have we never, as far as I can see, questioned it? I have no answers. I don't know why I've never brought it up, or even given it much thought. I can only suggest it is the same reason as the new upshoot in overautomation around the world. The computer really is your friend - but we need to stop and think wether automation is strictly needed, or even a good thing at all - and, much more than this simple, trivial example, we must prevent ourselves letting things run away with themselves until we know longer know the beast we created.

I'm not in the stone ages, but the fact remains that we've just let things get on with themselves under our very noses. Look at the real world. Die-by-wire has killed people. Remember the Air France didaster? Die-by-wire probably played it's merry role; not enough time flying means the pilots just didn't have a bloody clue how to handle the aircraft when they lost first airspeed (by way of pitot tube blockage) followed by all the computers they relied upon. Grab the bull by the horns, or the airliner by the throttles. You can maintain and monitor airspeed by playing with the throttle controls and reading the engines - but, after years of the plane flying itself, they couldn't. Don't let the media - or Airbus - blame it one the foreign pitot tubes. Is it what happened? Maybe not; but if I was a gambler (and the subject more appropriate) I'd put a lot of good money on it.

Wikinews, I feel, is in danger of losing its sense of direction - or, more critically, its airspeed. We've descended into dramahmongers and our quality control is dying on the vine. If we're going to avoid a stall then it's time we grabbed Wikinews by the throttles. We cannot allow ourselves to become factions or, worse, Wikipedians who feel incapable to speak their mind for fear of the consequencies. That's how aircraft crash, that's how ships are sunk - not seeing each other eye to eye, not being able to question the man who happens to have the throttle or the rudder controls.

Let's get back on track and not allow ourselves to stall. I will not let Wikinews allow Dr Complacency to inject whatever he likes into us. When I'm on my deathbed, I want Wikinews to still be around - and I want to be able to say "I played a part in building that," and have people know instantly what the place is and why it's special. But if we can't even have facts independantly verified before Autosight comes in and throws it to the masses, without consulting even the author, then there's a crash site ust waiting for all of us - and we won't even get a final report to commemorate us. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * . We are having issues by reviewing pages right now and how do you think people will have time to review more changes? --Diego Grez return fire 22:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I've thought about this before. Although the initial article gets rigorously checked over before publishing (or at least should be), any edits made after that by a Reviewer go largely unchecked by another pair of eyes. I would support disabling autosighting for the reasons laid out by BRS above; this would be a big step in improving factual accuracy, almost as big as the actual implementation of the review process. In regards to Diego, yes, that's an issue, but I feel the need to be as factual and reliable as possible overshadows that concern. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * because there are too damn many people think this is just a game. It is most definitely not. We set reviewer as "easy come, easy go", but people who have atrocious English spelling as a result of being non-native speakers have been granted the privilege. From a UK-centric point of view you should not have the privilege unless you could get an A at whatever the current equivalent of O-level is. That without diving into reviewing the POV, or credibility, of substantive additions post-publish. I despair at those who do not even know that Wikinews may be the last free bastion of The Fourth Estate. The responsibilities the project may be faced with, and ready to assume, are enormous. This is not a game; it is the difference between performing a vital public service and doing heart surgery while consulting Google with a laptop. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * because this would make us more reliable, but I am concerned about review times. Δεν δοδγε  τ\c 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * - reviewing changes to an article does not take anywhere near as long as reviewing an entire article. Currently the edits made by non-reviewers get sighted pretty quickly in general. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the plan here to require independent review of substantial edits to published articles? Or of all edits to published articles? (And if the former, what is the threshold where independent review is called for?) --Pi zero (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 * The former, and the threshold is anything that would not be acceptable to an archived article i.e. all non-content edits. Those that don't actually add new info will not need reverified. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 * We also need a policy/guideline explaining what reviewers are responsible for, but meanwhile, continued independent review after publication just makes sense. --Pi zero (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I like the idea, but I'm not sure there are enough active and willing reviewers to handle all those revisions. It's sometimes difficult just to find a reviewer to publish an article, let alone every new revision. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm sure reviewing individual edits is not a bad as doing a full on article review. I'd much of the time it is simple spelling, grammar, formatting, etc. fixes. — Mike moral  ♪♫  01:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Actually, such minor things could be reviewed by the person doing them. As far as reviewing the remaining revisions, you wouldn't have to review the entire article all over again - only what had been added. Most of the time you'd be reading minor copyedits to confirm they were NPOV - no need to factcheck a c/e since all the info was already factchecked, so you'd only do that if new info had actually been added. In short: Very few secondary reviews would actually require more than a minute or two's work. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Bug 23948 filed. — μ 20:15, June 13 2010 (UTC)

Limit page move to reviewers?
While we're waiting for developments on the FR/RFP nomination I made a hash of, there's something else that seems to me to warrant community attention. I've been reminded by two incidents in the past few days that an autoconfirmed non-reviewer, while they can't make their edits to a published article become published until a reviewer sights them, can rename the article with immediate effect. Neither of these two incidents was vandalism. [ One] was reasonably legitimate — at least, I wasn't sure it needed reversing, although I can see how someone might since it was more than 24 hours after publication. (I did revert most of the accompanying edits, which were a Wikipedian presumably echoing updates to the 'pedia article on the incident .) The [ other] was the author of the article simply not realizing that we start a new article for new developments, and I was glad to see they'd subsequently succeeded in writing a publication-worthy successor article. But it seems odd that someone who can't publish a spelling correction to a published article can move it. Of course it would be fine if we could simply disallow non-reviewers moving reviewed pages — in fact, that would be preferable, for non-reviewers developing articles in the newsroom — but I'm under the impression that Flaggedrevs can't do that. I think we can limit all page moves to reviewers, though. Should we? --Pi zero (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if it is technically possible to make page moves wait for sighting the same way as edits do. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That should be escalated to the developers post-haste. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's thataway ► ►. — μ 20:07, June 13 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a good approach to this would be having a new userright splitting up moving reviewed and non-reviewed pages. Then we could have it so that once a page gets sighted, only reviewers could move it, but before it gets sighted anyone can move the page. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So like an über-review then? — Mike moral  ♪♫  05:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious way for users would be to automatically remove a page's 'sighted' flag when it is moved. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the entire revision history is moved with the page, the previous sighted version is immediately under the new name. Having an unsighted version at the end of the history would bring it to reviewers' attention but wouldn't, I believe, prevent the move from taking immediate effect.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Good point. The most natural way for users (if there is one) is often more complicated technically.  I would suggest removing all the flags (so no version of the article is visible until it is reviewed again.)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like that idea. a move vandal could then easily cause all articles to be de-published. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Brainstorming — If we restrict moving to reviewers, might we provide... something... that would make an obvious and convenient interface for non-reviewers to slap a move-request template on the article's talk page (akin to editprotected, only aiming at reviewers instead of admins)? --Pi zero (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Accreditation 2.0
Please see here, Tris' linked-to, somewhat lengthy, response, and pay heed to the initially proposed points.

As best I can work out, we will need !Editors on each continent who are prepared to divulge direct, personal contact details to all who receive accreditation. And, I do not mean just email addresses. I mean direct phone numbers, with hours that it would be reasonable to call such at. These need to be volunteers who will, with little-to-no-notice, get things sorted for anyone who gets into trouble.

The other critical point is ID cards. We've tiptoed round this in the past, and the "laminate yourself" ID is a crap option. These need to be credit-card style ID, with photographs. With full name & contact details that match any government issued ID you have, and contain real security features to confirm the card is genuine. So, yes, if you want to be accredited, it will cost money.

While keeping discussion short, I'd welcome feedback. Then, work up a proposal of several points to form the underpinning of a revised policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Last time the ID issue came up, Shaka did some cost checking. Based on our needs buying a printer would not be a good idea. Individually purchased cards are the best, easiest, and most reliable option, at least until we have ~100+ active accredited editors on a continuing basis. Each individual ID card is reasonably priced, and some of them have decent security options. Most currently accredited reporters won't have a problem buying one card every two years even at 11 dollars per card, and that's at the top end of the price range. Gopher65talk 22:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Points to consider that have, to-date, not been mentioned...
 * The committee, or board, who act as emergency contacts to/from Wikinewsies will need to be able to deal with contacting law enforcement, legal assistance, consulates, event organisers, and pro-rights/journalism groups.
 * The scope of tasks for the role will require people with serious Google-Fu.
 * I already have contacts for the Electronic Frontiers Foundation, Open Rights Group, Wikileaks, and sundry others. Yes, I'll share my Rolodex contents – there needs to be a commitment from those entrusted with it to only use in emergencies.
 * I can easily add Reporters Without Borders to my list of contacts, this may be essential – as may Amnesty International.
 * As highlighted in IRC, several of our current accredited reporters are under eighteen. This may be problematic for people taking responsibility over accreditation. I'm prepared to go through the hoops to be 'trusted' with "children" (despite the asshattery around this in the UK). Are others?

 * In other news, I've put the wheels in motion to remove the private registration from wikinewsie.org. While it has been suggested to go elsewhere for such services, I have to say "no thanks, I'll risk my address in the public domain". All of these services effectively take ownership of the domain – bad.
 * I have contacted a UK-based firm that makes hi-tech ID printers. No, not to purchase one (we can't afford such) but, to get the names of a few bureaux who might manage card production and verification. I do, however, have a fallback plan:
 * Purchase an SSL cert for wikinewsie.org
 * Create some relatively simple CGI code to generate hashcodes to be printed on ID.
 * Have an online system to verify the hashcodes.
 * Hack together an Asterisk-based system for automated phone verification of hashcodes.
 * Most of this would require that we move wikinewsie.org hosting to a dedicated server.

 * Now, I'll leave the above for people to cogitate over. I will, as time progresses, turn this into a firm proposal to revise the accreditation process and policy. The working name for the group managing it is, per IRC discussion, "Community Accreditation Board for Assistance and Logistics". --Brian McNeil / talk 22:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm wondering if we can get the Foundation to assist us. Honestly, I'd think it'd be best for the Foundation to handle our personal information and to also keep all this centralized. For the IDs, a private firm seems okay and is probably the easiest way for us to get our press badges. By the way, when was this IRC consensus discussion I seem to have missed. As a side note, IIRC, one of the local papers employs a few minors as journalists, but I cannot seem to recall the name. — Mike moral  ♪♫  06:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Assume Good Intentions - take two
I've recently tried to rework our new essay, WN:AGI, to be more consise [sic] and to-the-point. This is something we have needed for a long time, especially after the recent mess with Matthew Edwards. I'd like to get this community-approved as a guideline, so it has more weight, but first would welcome input on the page in its current state to see if this is something we can all agree on. Please read the page and comment on whether you think it needs something added, removed, or changed. Open to thoughts. Tempodivalse [talk]  16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 * One general thought. Moving forward on the page is important, but so is not hurrying the path to guideline status.  This is clearly hard to get right for Wikinews.  It's important to get it right.  It's important to not get it wrong.  And community sensitivity to the dangers is very high right now; the main function of the page is to guide the community in the long term, not the short term.  So we can and should take the extra time to be sure we've thought everything through thoroughly.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's only a guideline, it doesn't need to be perfect. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't just any guideline. Due to the pervasiveness of AGF elsewhere, this thing applies a lot of leverage to whatever status it's given.  AGF on Wikipedia (pardon my Anglo-Saxon) is "only" a guideline, after all.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to "hurry" along the process, just trying to boost community input into it since the discussion appears to have stalled in recent weeks and I was also interested in what other people had to think about my recent changes. Although yes, i agree we should take the time to phrase this appropriately because it will inevitably carry a lot of weight. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on above-input, I'd say there is a damn good reason why discussion has stalled. That being, people recognise it should be somewhat deprecated here. Whoopsie! I just, were this Wikipedia, broke AGI. That's WN:POINT, isn't it? --Brian McNeil / talk 01:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't build a strawman. I'd have to disagree with that, community consensus appears to be quite in favour of us having this, if the comments on the recent DR request and elsewhere on-wiki are any indication. At the very least I've not seen anyone - well, besides you - campaigning against it. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strawman; not my intent. Yes, a need for something. WikiLawyering, and navel gazing do not further the primary project goals'. Quit bugging people for what you think is best. If you can't sum it up, and the fundamental differences from The Other Place™, in the average article's two-sentence lede, then asking people to review it is project disruption. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to pester everyone into supporting my position, and I'm disappointed you see it that way. Besides one or two comments at Pi zero's talk page, this is actually my first on-wiki post regarding the issue. So please tell me in what other way I can get attention; you know how easily discussions stall here unless everyone is reminded of them. That AGI is different from WP's AGF IMHO should be immediately obvious from the first few lines - but go ahead, suggest an alternative if you don't think so. I don't think that wikilawyering or navel-gazing applies here at all. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a stupid thing to argue about. AGF is a good thing (yes I said agf not agi. It doesn't matter what you call it, it all boils down to the same thing, especially because the definition of an action committed with good intentions is an action in good faith). Yes assuming good faith can be taken too far, but if you assume everyone is evil they will turn out to be evil. So basically: Too much of anything is a bad thing, thus create two guidelines/essays/whatever. One talks all about agf in all its glory, the other talks about Trust but verify (or something similar) Put on the top of both pages that both extremes are bad, and a happy middle should be found. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't share that vision of what we should be aiming for. --Pi zero (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need two separate pages - couldn't it all be in one? I think that would get the point across more clearly, plus will emphasise the few differences between us and WP if it's kept trimmed and short (to avoid TLDR).
 * I do agree with Bawolff in general about AGF though. Really, I fail to see what this level of antiwikipedianism is all about - so just because they have some guideline with a similar name, it's utter trash and we can't adapt the good parts of it to suit our needs? Tempodivalse [talk]  13:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:InternetGoomba

title: User talk:InternetGoomba


text: User talk:Potatisodlarn

title: User talk:Potatisodlarn


text:
Thread:Comments:International Committee of the Red Cross condemns Gaza blockade/International Committee of the Red Cross condemns Gaza blockade/reply (12)

Wikiprefix is not a trade mark, since it is used to boil empty air until it grows the size of nothing.


text:
Thread:Comments:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology/Comments from feedback form - "Great article...would love to ..."/reply (9)

I said religion. Not this 'religion', I was talking about real religions.


text: User talk:Nik Denin

title: User talk:Nik Denin


text: User talk:Shattered

title: User talk:Shattered


text:
Thread:Comments:Portuguese writer José Saramago dies at 87/RIP Saramago/reply

The death of a great men and a great writer saddens me profundely. You shall be missed.


text: User talk:Joeshump

title: User talk:Joeshump


text: User talk:Dannybabau

title: User talk:Dannybabau


text: User talk:KyllanT

title: User talk:KyllanT


text: User talk:Andreclos

title: User talk:Andreclos


text: User talk:Leonardo olivares

title: User talk:Leonardo olivares


text:
User talk:InspectorSands

Tempodivalse [talk]  00:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:InspectorSands


text: User talk:Nelvana

title: User talk:Nelvana


text: User talk:Colorincolorados

title: User talk:Colorincolorados


text: User talk:Robertwong5

title: User talk:Robertwong5


text: User talk:P.urmulu

title: User talk:P.urmulu


text: User talk:TamilBOT

title: User talk:TamilBOT


text: User talk:Robert93217

title: User talk:Robert93217


text: User talk:Bitaliadelcarmen

title: User talk:Bitaliadelcarmen


text:
Thread:Comments:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology/Comments from feedback form - "Great article...would love to ..."/reply (10)

Yeah, well, for more information on views about that particular matter, the multi-award-winning TIME article "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power" has lots of interesting details.


text: User talk:John holyfied

title: User talk:John holyfied


text:
User talk:71.110.90.242

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  02:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Your article has been moved
Your article has been moved to this location: Dallas police officer charged after firing gun in patrol car. Gopher65talk 01:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:71.110.90.242


text:
Three dead in murder-suicide shooting at Southern California fast food restaurant

June 20, 2010 A 6-year-old boy and his father were shot and killed Saturday afternoon while eating inside a busy fast food restaurant in, California, before the shooter turned a gun on himself.

According to the San Bernadino Police Department, 56-year-old Jimmy Schlager arrived at the Del Taco at 1:15pm PST (2015 ) on a bicycle, and, armed with two semi-automatic guns, entered the restaurant and opened fire on a family of four who were dining together. The employees and other customers all ran out of the restaurant and escaped without injury.

The father of the family, identified as 33-year-old Alex Trujillo, was declared dead at the scene, said the San Bernadino Fire Department. His wife and two sons were taken to in critical condition. His 6-year-old son, Adrian, died shortly after. The victims each suffered two bullet wounds, except the mother, who police say received up to ten gunshots. The names of the 29-year-old woman and her 5-year-old son have not been released. Both remained in critical condition on Saturday night.

After shooting the family, Schlager, later identified as the woman's step-father, shot himself in the head. He was taken to, where he later died from the self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Police said Schlager had previously been arrested a number of times, on charges that included theft and assault with a deadly weapon.


text:
User talk:Shintaro~enwikinews

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 Shintaro. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Shintaro~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 23:21, 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:Shintaro~enwikinews


text:
Australian rules football: 2010 Gippsland Football League round 10 - Leongatha v Wonthaggi

June 20, 2010

got some measure of revenge against defeating them by 95 points in their round ten Gippsland Football League clash at the Leongatha Recreation Reserve. In their round one game, Wonthaggi won by one point at the Wonthaggi Recreation Reserve.

The Gippsland Football League is the only major Australian rules football competition in the Gippsland region according to the Victorian Country Football League.

At the league's annual general meeting in December, it changed its name from the West Gippsland Latrobe Football League. At the same meeting, Wonthaggi joined the GL after dominating the Football League during the past decade. The Power made five consecutive Alberton Grand Finals winning three, losing only to (2007) and  (2009).

Wonthaggi Power Football Club is a result of a merger between Wonthaggi Blues, a former Gippsland FL team, and Wonthaggi Rovers, an Alberton FL team. In February, the Gippsland Football League announced that Wonthaggi would be changing their uniforms, because their original one was similar to that of.

In their round one game, Wonthaggi won by one point at the Wonthaggi Recreation Reserve.

Around the grounds, Traralgon defeated Moe by 35 points, Maffra defeated Drouin by 37 points and Morwell defeated Warragul 35 points. Sale had the bye.

Scores are quoted as goals-behinds (total). Goals are worth six points, behinds one.

Leongatha's nineteen goals came through ten individual goal kickers while Wonthaggis five goals were kicked by three kickers.

Leongatha's Dwayne Holt kicked more than Wonthaggi's total score with seven goals. Nicholas Nagel (three goals), Tom Marriot (two goals), Hayden Browne, Sam Sperling, Jake Mackie, Ben Geitz, Dylan Westaway, Todd Mackie and Jason Casey were the other goal kickers for the hosts.

Pauls Brosnan and Phillip Young were the multiple goal kickers for Wonthaggi with Rod Tack adding the fifth.


text: User talk:Kroyff

title: User talk:Kroyff


text:
Talk:Australian rules football: 2010 Gippsland Football League round 10 - Leongatha v Wonthaggi

OR
Goals - Leongatha Hayden Browne 	1 Sam Sperling 	1 Jake Mackie 	1 Ben Geitz 	1 Dylan Westaway 	1 Todd Mackie 	1 Jason Casey 	1 Tom Marriott 	2 Nicholas Nagel 	3 Dwayne Holt 	7

- Wonthaggi Rod Tack 	1 Phillip Young 	2 Paul Brosnan 	2

Scores Leongatha 19.16-130 Wonthaggi 5.5-35 --RockerballAustralia c 02:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Three dead in murder-suicide shooting at Southern California fast food restaurant

New information
Overnight, new information has come to light, including the shooter's name, that the 8yo was actually 6 years old, and that the victims, other than the mother, all recieved 2 GSWs. Now the article's been published can it still be updated or do I have to write a new article? pe.com has the majority of this info. Matthewedwards (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, well I'll just update it with the info and someone can review it again. I'm not starting a new article for such minor information, just want to get this corrected. Matthewedwards (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just add the stuff to this one, it's not too old to do so and it's definitely not worth writing a new article on. C628 (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The procedure is to write a new article if 24 hours (roughly) have passed between the publish time and the new info emerging. So yeah, into this article. Good to see you still around! Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


text: Comments:Three dead in murder-suicide shooting at Southern California fast food restaurant


text: User talk:Amar222

title: User talk:Amar222


text: Comments:Bomb left outside police station in Northern Ireland


text: User talk:Acex deni

title: User talk:Acex deni


text: Comments:Australian rules football: 2010 Gippsland Football League round 10 - Leongatha v Wonthaggi


text: User talk:Sleepables

title: User talk:Sleepables


text: Comments:Getty taps into Flickr snappers


text:
Comments:2007 Twenty20 World Championship: India vs Pakistan

Comments from feedback form - "very good"
very good —115.118.45.215 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "welldone both teams keep it up"
welldone both teams keep it up —110.174.51.43 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "very good"
very good —116.73.97.150 (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


text: User talk:Sunny susu

title: User talk:Sunny susu


text: User talk:Ali shahiry

title: User talk:Ali shahiry


text: User talk:ILOVELOL32

title: User talk:ILOVELOL32


text: User talk:Anhphongnvn

title: User talk:Anhphongnvn


text: User talk:Ali ali ali6

title: User talk:Ali ali ali6


text: User talk:Sczl1110

title: User talk:Sczl1110


text: User talk:Sastro tejo

title: User talk:Sastro tejo


text:
Thread:Comments:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology/Comments from feedback form - "Great article...would love to ..."/reply (11)

You expect verbal assault for that comment? Iain, you should know better; I fully agree.

Religion is the one delusion given a get-out-of-jail-free card in the DSM-IV. But, can you imagine trying to criminalise indoctrinating anyone below the age of consent into churches or cults?


text:
User talk:Prolineserver

Welcome
--Brian McNeil / talk 08:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:Prolineserver


text: Comments:Sarkozy in UK to mark historic de Gaulle war broadcast


text: User talk:GenyAncalagon

title: User talk:GenyAncalagon


text: User talk:JuventinoAzero

title: User talk:JuventinoAzero


text: User talk:Alfredo Puna Mabuela Gomes

title: User talk:Alfredo Puna Mabuela Gomes


text: User talk:Anshitkumar1997

title: User talk:Anshitkumar1997


text:
Template talk:Internet

The pic
The pic is too technical. Not exactly what the average reader will understand. Maybe a diagram with computers connected with one another? Kayau (talk · contribs) 08:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose we could, although this one looks cooler ... *shrug* Tempodivalse [talk]  13:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 * How about an older, simpler map of the Internet? I totally disagree that this is "too technical", it is a purdy picture. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, that one looks kinda boring. This one might be techy, but it's more fun than some black-and-white image. Tempodivalse [talk]  16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with . :P -- Cirt (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't think understanding the ins and outs is the point. People look at it and go 'wow, that's impressive' and marvel at how pretty an Internetmap can be. It's meant to be spectacular; they get the general point of what it is. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The pic makes me think of outer space! Kayau (talk · contribs)
 * The corner reminds me of a borg cube. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Internet


text:
User talk:Amgine/SG Details-P

platitude

title: User talk:Amgine/SG Details-P


text: User talk:Hasibhbk

title: User talk:Hasibhbk


text: User talk:M03n

title: User talk:M03n


text:
User talk:Aashish~enwikinews

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 Aashish. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Aashish~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 23:12, 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) 06:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aashish~enwikinews


text: User talk:Tranluat211

title: User talk:Tranluat211


text: User talk:Hoadang17

title: User talk:Hoadang17


text: User talk:Tranzit-by

title: User talk:Tranzit-by


text: User talk:Gabriele Deulofleu

title: User talk:Gabriele Deulofleu


text: User talk:Kellyunderwood

title: User talk:Kellyunderwood


text: User talk:LilGh0$t

title: User talk:LilGh0$t


text:
Thread:Comments:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology/Comments from feedback form - "Great article...would love to ..."/reply (12)

1) Yeah, I expect sarcastic comments about the utter rubbish of all religions and how we'd all be better off without them ;)

2) Yes, unfortunately I can. It might be achievable, though, but fairly polarising. I'd set a fairly low age for consenting to religion.


text: User talk:Alban7336

title: User talk:Alban7336


text: User talk:Juan L. Bacigalupo

title: User talk:Juan L. Bacigalupo


text: User talk:Tijjani alhaji hassan

title: User talk:Tijjani alhaji hassan


text: User talk:ECRIP Spencer

title: User talk:ECRIP Spencer


text:
Thread:Comments:Kyrgyzstan: Violence continues, death toll rises/Comments from feedback form - "Bad. Crappy. Very. Flawless......"

Bad. Crappy. Very. Flawless... in boring me.


text:
Thread:Comments:South Korean Naro-1 space rocket explodes after take-off/Comments from feedback form - "Um... Well... You see... Um..."

Um... Well... You see... Um...


text:
User talk:SMK Kanisius

non-English user page
Please note that this is the English Wikinews project. Your user page appears to have been cut and pasted from a non-English website. Thus, it is likely to be deleted. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:SMK Kanisius


text:
User talk:ACEOREVIVED

Tempodivalse [talk]  13:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

title: User talk:ACEOREVIVED


text: User talk:Ganz abu

title: User talk:Ganz abu


text: User talk:Dukembl

title: User talk:Dukembl


text: User talk:Inigokwakamigaa

title: User talk:Inigokwakamigaa


text:
Thread:Comments:Women reveal accounts of forced abortion in Scientology/Comments from feedback form - "Great article...would love to ..."/reply (13)

Well, yes. It'd be the cause of enormous outrage.

I'd love to see Richard Dawkins try that. ;-)


text: User talk:Nickytrill

title: User talk:Nickytrill


text: User talk:Sultana amin2010

title: User talk:Sultana amin2010


text: User talk:Themildimplorer

title: User talk:Themildimplorer


text:
Comments:Report of air crash near Abuja - over 100 feared dead

Comments from feedback form - "Nice but too short"
Nice but too short —110.172.174.62 (talk) 15:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


text: User talk:Unday

title: User talk:Unday


text:
User:J.delanoy/monobook.js

mw.loader.load('https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:J.delanoy/global.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

title: User:J.delanoy/monobook.js


text:
User:Amgine/SG Details-P

p's and q's
See apostrophes for forming plural of letters.

Note the etymology is disputed, however journalists might profitably consider it to mean "mind your punctuation and quotes".

pace
The latin term "in peace", generally legal use "with all due respect to" (use is generally ironic, extremely polite, and in this usage always italicized).

paedophile
Properly, pædophile, but acceptably pedophile.

Note ephebophile is the painfully-precise term for someone whose sexual attractions are to adolescents (WHO describes adolescent as ages 10-25). The term pædophile is commonly applied to sexual attraction or relations with children under the age of majority.

palace
Capitalize in full name, e.g. Blenheim Palace.

paleo-
Not palaeo-.

paleontology
The study of lifeforms in prehistoric and geologic times, as opposed to archaeology.

Palestine
Do not use except historically, or in reference to the Palestine Liberation Organization's representative in the United Nations. There is no existing country of Palestine, despite international agreements demanding its existence and recognition.

Do not use Wikipedia articles regarding any Middle-East conflict issue either as reference or as a link; they are heavily biased, generally in favour of the Israeli point of view.

Palestinian National Authority
Not Palestine (although note Palestine Liberation Organization). After first mention, Palestinian Authority or PNA are acceptable. The organization created in 1994 as required by the Oslo Accords as a five-year interim administrative body. In 2006 the Hammas party in the occupied territories won the elections and formed a government, since which point Israel and other sovereign nations have effectively disengaged from/halted the peace processes.

Do not use Wikipedia articles regarding any Middle-East conflict issue either as reference or as a link; they are heavily biased, generally in favour of the Israeli point of view.

Palestinian territories
Avoid use whenever possible. The term is extremely extremely loaded, and is generally used by Israel to frame news coverage to their point of view of solely Gaza strip and the West Bank and ignoring the League of Nations, United Nations, and international agreements which involve additional territories which Israel claims under rights of conquest.

Palme d'Or
The top award at the annual Cannes Film Festival.

pan-African
But Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania.

Pandora's box
Note capitalization.

pantyhose
Prefer tights, nylon tights. (Note: nylons are not equivalent - nylons are separate stockings.)

paparazzi
Plural; singular is paparazzo.

paraffin
Not paraffine. Synonym for kerosene, the term preferred in North America.

paratroopers
Not paratroops.

parentheses
Punctuation falls outside the parentheses (for example), except when the parenthetical remark is a complete sentence. (This is an example of the exception.) Capitalize a parenthetical statement only if it is a complete sentence. Where the remark within a sentence requires different punctuation, punctuate appropriately inside (You mean like this?).

Paris
Home to oft-misspelt locations:
 * Champs Élysées
 * Élysée Palace
 * Jardin du Luxembourg (not de)
 * Jardin des Tuileries (not de)
 * Jeu de Paume (not Pomme)
 * Quai d'Orsay

Parker Bowles, Camilla
No hyphen. On her marriage to the Prince of Wales she became Duchess of Cornwall. When in Scotland, and when he is identified as the Duke of Rothesay, she is officially the Duchess of Rothesay.

Parkinson's disease
After James Parkinson.

Parliament
Capitalize in the proper noun, and in later references when referring to the proper noun. Do not capitalize in reference to legislative bodies which do not incorporate the term: e.g. the Russian parliament (the Duma).

Note the adjectival use is generally lowercase when referring to one of many, but uppercase when referring to a singular. Examples parliamentary private secretaries, but Parliamentary Ombudsman.

Parsi
Not Parsee.

parties (political)
On first mention, use the full common name, for example Democratic Party, capitalizing as proper name. Thereafter use lowercase party, uppercase initials, or capitalized common name. (e.g. the Democrats, the party, the DNC although the latter is more specifically the fundraising and leadership of the party.)

Partition
Capitalize when referring to the partition of British India into the separate countries of Pakistan and India in August of 1947.

passive voice
In the passive voice the subject is acted on by the verb. Jim was seen by Bob is written in the passive voice. Bob saw Jim is in the active voice, and is more direct and concise. Avoid writing in the passive voice.

pdf
Portable document format. The initialism is never capitalized except as the first word in a sentence, and then Pdf. Need not be spelled out for online publication, except when it is a major element of the article in which case pdf thereafter.

percent
Spell out the word, not %. Use numbers rule to decide whether the number should likewise be spelled out.

perspicuity, perspicacity
Perspicuity is the character of clarity, lucidity of something else, originally the translucence. Perspicacity is the skill or talent to see (or write, or speak) clearly, to have keen insight or to mentally understand; discernment.

Ph.D.
Avoid except in direct quotes. Use instead doctorate in [correct field of study].

plurals
Form the plural of a noun with -s, or -es where the final letter is an s or a vowel. e.g. nouns, successes, tomatoes. This is a general rule for which there are many exceptions. Do not use an apostrophe + s to form a plural of numbers: 1970s, 1700s, 737s. Likewise, do not use an apostrophe + s to form a plural of any abbreviated term or acronyms: M.D.s, ATVs.

Treat group nouns of people as plural: the family are on holiday, the public await the outcome. Corporate or governmental entities take the singular verb except where this sounds unnatural; e.g. The National Institutes of Health are..., but Johnson & Johnson is... Be consistent throughout an article; if using the plural verb form, use plural every time, recasting the sentence if necessary.

Where there is still confusion, refer to the specific term in the SG Details. If it is not listed, and you cannot determine what is the best plural for the region where the news event occurred, leave Amgine a request.

possessives
Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's. It does not matter what the final letter of the noun may be: Dickens's book, the actress's performance, the tax's effect. This is true whether it is a proper noun or not: Thomas's research paper, Miss's dog.

Form the possessive plural of nouns which end in s with an appended apostrophe: Lehman Brothers' stock, the actresses' contracts, the taxes' revenues. Form the possessive plural of nouns which do not end in s with an 's: the women's votes, the geese's flight.

Exceptions:
 * Pronouns do not form the possessive with an apostrophe: his, hers, whose, etc. The exception to the exception is the indefinite possessive pronoun one's, as in "one's opinion may be wrong."
 * Some personal names, generally historic figures, whose names end in 's' but which in normal speech do not include the additional '-es' sound, may form the possessive with an appended apostrophe: Ullysses' companions, Saint-Saëns' symphony. Roger Waters' album is more common in spoken speech than Roger Waters's album, though the latter is grammatically correct.

prefixes
Use a hyphen when creating a word or using a rare construction involving pre-, post-, anti-, multi-, pro-, etc. Do not hyphenate very short prefixes such as un-, co-, bi- or using micro- or the SI prefixes.

pro-choice
Avoid use. Use advocates of a woman's right to choose [abortion], etc. See abortion.

pro-life, pro-lifer
Do not use. Use anti-abortion, anti-abortionist, etc. See abortion.

prima donna
Not italicized.

protégé
With acute accents.

protester
Never protestor.

punctuation
Normal rules apply, but pay particular attention to punctuation near quotations.

title: User:Amgine/SG Details-P


text:
User:Amgine/SG Details-Q

Qantas
Not Quantas. (Originally registered as the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services Limited, now registered as Qantas.)

QC
As abbreviation for the Canadian province of Quebec use standard punctuation. Do not use for Quebec City; spell out in full. As an initialism for Queen's Counsel, spell out on first mention except after a name, in which case set off with commas from other honors. Do not in any case use the dot.

QE2
Spell out Queen Elizabeth 2 on first mention, thereafter QE2 or the ship. Do not describe as a liner.

qi
Prefer this spelling over chi.

QinetiQ
Note capitalisation.

quadriplegia, quadriplegic
Not quadra-.

Quai d'Orsay
Location of, and metonym for, the French Foreign Ministry, which is on the Left Bank (south) of the river Seine.

al-Quds
The Arabic name for the disputed city, also known as Jerusalem. Use lower case east/west al-Quds. Generically speaking, use al-Quds in articles concerning the Palestinian portions of the city, but include explanation for the more widely-recognized in English name Jerusalem. Do not use al-Quds as a metonym for the Palestinian state as it is not recognized as the Palestinian capitol, and its status is one of the central controversies of the Middle East.

Do not use the Wikipedia article about Jerusalem as a reference; like the city, it is currently dominated by a pro-Israeli POV.

Québécois
Not Quebeckers.

Queen, the
Use a qualifier, i.e. the Queen of Aruba (see Wikipedia's lists of current queens and all queens as to why.)

Note that each royal court tends to have its own ettiquette. For the Queen of the United Kingdom, after first mention she may be referred to as Her Majesty or HM, but not Her Royal Highness (HRH).

Queen's and Queens'
The variants generally, but not always, are due to reference to a specific individual versus the title generically.

The following always use 's:
 * Queen's birthday honours list
 * Queen's Club (in London)
 * Queen's College, Oxford, officially The Queen's College
 * Queen's Park, the oldest football club in Scotland shares its name with the London Tube station.
 * Queen's speech
 * Queen's University Belfast, officially The Queen's University of Belfast

The following always use s':
 * Queens' Bedroom, Whitehouse, Washington D.C., USA
 * Queens' College, Cambridge
 * Queens' Guard, College of William and Mary
 * Queens' School, Hertfordshire

Queens Park Rangers
No apostrophe, English football club, full name at first mention, QPR thereafter.

queueing
Not queuing.

quicker
Never use as an adverb - use more quickly. "He ran more quickly." For adjective use only, modifying a noun; e.g. "a quicker pace".

quicklime, quicksand, and quicksilver
Not hyphenated.

quiz
Neither police nor prosecutors quiz their subjects; they question them.

Quorn
When referring to the food product, trademarked (™).

quotation marks
Use double quotes to mark the start and end of of a quoted section within the article. If a quoted section continues for more than the single paragraph, use a quote template, or blockquote html tag, to set the entire quoted section off from the body text of the news article.

Use single quotation marks in headlines, section headers around quoted sections.

Use double quotation marks around titles of songs, poems, and essays, as well as around song lyrics. Use double quotations in captions.

Nest quotes within quotes, alternating single and double quote marks. e.g. "Amy's shout that 'Stupid quotes like George's "boring" are annoying!' is, itself, a boring quote," said James.

When a quoted section ends in a full-stop, and the attribution is to be appended, substitute a comma within the quotation mark. e.g. "Omit needless words," declaims William Strunk junior. In most other cases the punctuation at the end of the quoted section is enclosed unaltered within the quotation mark. Where no punctuation closes the quoted section, or when the quoted section is exceptionally short, no punctuation is included inside the quote mark. e.g. They used insults like "immigrant", "tribal", and "savage".

title: User:Amgine/SG Details-Q


text:
User:Amgine/SG Details-R

race card
Do not use this hackneyed phrase.

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani
Often shortened to Hashemi Rafsanjani after first mention, he should more properly be called Ayatollah Rafsanjani when referred to in any official capacity after first mention, or by whichever title he was acting under.

Rangoon
Do not use. The current name is Yangon.

rarefy
The correct spelling; do not use rarify.

rebut
Means to meet in argument, but it does not disprove. For that purpose use refute

record
Avoid the pleonasm "new record".

refute
Does not indicate a position in a debate; it states an opposing view is disproven, found false.

Reims
Formerly Rheims, but no longer.

relative
Avoid use as a noun; prefer relation.

relative time
Online, try to avoid the use of terms such as "yesterday", "today", and "tomorrow". There are many timezones, and it is not reasonable to assume the readers in each of them will instinctively adjust relative time terms for UTC. It is an unnecessary burden to put on our readers.

If you need to specify, use the day of the week of the story location. This follows the en.WN preference for the story location for determining style elements. If possible where the language sounds natural, use a formulation such as "Monday, the 25th of April."

In print is a different situation: morning editions can make good use of "yesterday", afternoon/evening editions can make good use of "tomorrow". But online stories will be archived after publication, and accessible forever; use time terms which are readily referenced.

report
A report is always on a subject, not into a subject.

reshuffle, resupply
Almost never necessary; shuffle or supply will do.

restaurateur
Not restauranteur.

Reykjavík
Note acute accent.

Rheims
Do not use. Current official name is Reims.

rocketed
Prefer over skyrocketed, which is generally a one-word pleonasm.

rococo
Not rococò (which is the italianization of the French term) nor roccoco.

ropy
Not ropey.

run
In presidential government systems one may run for public office. In parliamentary systems one may stand for office.

Russian
These are general notes for presenting names, titles, and terms in the Russian language in a Latin script. The several standards for transliteration are neither consistent nor without drawbacks; these are rules of thumb only and are suggested for simplicity and not phonetic accuracy. (Keep in mind that en.Wikinews is essentially a print media, not a spoken word media, however unfortunate that may be.)

 * Replace dzh with j.
 * Words ending in -ski, -skii, or -sky replace with -sky. All other words ending in -i, -ii, -y replace with -i.
 * No y before e, eg Belarus. Exception: if e starts the word, eg Yeltsin, Yevgeny.
 * Similarly, where pronunciation requires it include a y before a at the start of a word, but not at the end of the word. eg Yavlinsky, but Alia (not Aliya.) There are exceptions, such as Chechenya.
 * Anything pronounced yo is generally written e, eg Gorbachev.

title: User:Amgine/SG Details-R