text:
User talk:Deepshreesh

-- 16:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deepshreesh


text:
User talk:Willodhiams

-- 16:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:Willodhiams


text:
User talk:Wijomojo

-- 16:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wijomojo


text:
User talk:RanjeetRK

-- 16:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:RanjeetRK


text:
User talk:Floquensock

-- 16:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Floquensock


text:
User talk:Gabriele Conti

-- 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gabriele Conti


text:
Thread:Comments:Opposition Leader predicts 'people's revolt' in Australia over carbon tax/Comments from feedback form - "This article looks like a free..."

This article looks like a free advertisement for one political party that is interupted with an equally biased message from the opposing party. Rather than provide information such as a comparison of how much energy prices would change with and without the carbon tax the article just parrot's the politician's messages. Given the revolts in the mid-east and north-africa digifying this prediction of a 'revolt' in Australia gives people a completely wrong impression of the state of Australian politics.


text:
User talk:Pravinod

-- 16:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pravinod


text:
User talk:Luixx258963

-- 16:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Luixx258963


text:
User talk:Mitchell0

-- 16:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mitchell0


text:
User talk:Sunilsinghar

-- 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sunilsinghar


text:
User talk:Star7289

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

title: User talk:Star7289


text:
User talk:Schüler2012

-- 17:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Schüler2012


text:
User talk:Apr1fool

-- 17:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Apr1fool


text:
User talk:Bped1985

-- 17:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bped1985


text:
User talk:Dianhusada

-- 17:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dianhusada


text:
Thread:Comments:Opposition Leader predicts 'people's revolt' in Australia over carbon tax/Bring on the new tax (2)/reply

I love the right winger. "I've got no sympathy for them of course, I don't care if the cost of living goes up so high for average Australians that they can no longer cope." I am bet money that you are a Christian too and that you have WWJD bracelet. You people keep complaining about taxes but do not mind spending when it comes to war. The tax is needed to cut down carbon otherwise, you will not be able to enjoy your beloved money because you will be under water due to climate change. but again climate change is science and you are not interested in facts.


text:
User talk:Mukeshpersonal

-- 17:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mukeshpersonal


text:
User talk:Swapreader

-- 18:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Swapreader


text:
User talk:RichardBrian13

-- 18:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:RichardBrian13


text:
User talk:Dungindunghaufen

-- 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dungindunghaufen


text:
User talk:DanTilkin

-- 18:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DanTilkin


text:
User talk:Deinozyx

-- 18:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deinozyx


text:
User talk:Nielsu

-- 18:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nielsu


text:
User talk:Tamarperetz1

-- 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tamarperetz1


text:
User talk:Wertzuio2012

-- 18:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wertzuio2012


text:
User talk:Zandr4

-- 18:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zandr4


text:
User talk:Qg5

-- 18:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Qg5


text:
User talk:BeeTechnology

-- 18:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:BeeTechnology


text:
User talk:Msm97

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

title: User talk:Msm97


text:
User talk:Spong129

-- 18:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Spong129


text:
User talk:ვარდენ ჟღენტი

-- 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ვარდენ ჟღენტი


text:
User talk:Whallex5000

-- 19:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Whallex5000


text:
User talk:PoppinSmoke

-- 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PoppinSmoke


text:
User talk:Corleone.gty

-- 19:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Corleone.gty


text:
User talk:Augusto XXI

-- 19:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Augusto XXI


text:
User talk:Deoxy99

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

title: User talk:Deoxy99


text:
Thread:Comments:Eleven children injured in Scottish school shooting; two teenagers detained/Question/reply (2)

I think they actually have no motive...


text:
User talk:PCSEventProductions

-- 19:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PCSEventProductions


text:
User talk:Pacoperez1967

-- 19:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pacoperez1967


text:
Thread:Comments:Students plan protests at UK schools/Updates

Updates can be seen here


text:
User talk:ThinkingTwice

-- 20:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ThinkingTwice


text:
User talk:Santicontreras

-- 20:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Santicontreras


text:
User talk:RIArt

-- 20:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:RIArt


text:
User talk:Ronnythe

-- 20:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ronnythe


text: User talk:DrKay

title: User talk:DrKay


text:
User talk:Cid ferreira junior

-- 20:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cid ferreira junior


text:
User talk:Ndrwdnhm

-- 20:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ndrwdnhm


text:
User talk:Ruppert

-- 20:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ruppert


text:
User talk:DavidL46

-- 21:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DavidL46


text:
User talk:Alessandro-Guevara

-- 21:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alessandro-Guevara


text:
User talk:Contains Mild Peril

-- 21:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Contains Mild Peril


text:
User talk:OpticalBlimp

-- 21:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:OpticalBlimp


text:
User talk:Noha.mohammad

-- 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Noha.mohammad


text:
User:Microchip08/Database dump/Reviewers/user

 * User:
 * talk
 * contribs
 * count
 * count
 * count


text:
User:Microchip08/Database dump/Reviewers

Reviewers as of 1 March 2010; retrieved by a simple copy-paste of Special:Listusers/editor.


text:
User talk:Alessioambro

-- 21:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alessioambro


text:
User talk:Enfuabcbajojupa

-- 21:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Enfuabcbajojupa


text:
User talk:Mapdock

-- 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mapdock


text:
User talk:Sömning

-- 22:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sömning


text:
User talk:Tic1abjamg

-- 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tic1abjamg


text:
User talk:Prince de Fleur

-- 22:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Prince de Fleur


text:
User talk:Ljuslykta

-- 22:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ljuslykta


text:
User talk:Anacristalda

-- 22:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anacristalda


text:
User talk:Barek-public

-- 22:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Barek-public


text:
User talk:Eml5526.s11.team7.jb

-- 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eml5526.s11.team7.jb


text:
User talk:Marcus Meer

-- 22:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marcus Meer


text:
User talk:Mattrud

-- 22:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mattrud


text:
User talk:Platini722000

-- 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Platini722000


text:
User talk:Purslane

-- 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Purslane


text:
User talk:Carlo Rebaudengo

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

title: User talk:Carlo Rebaudengo


text:
User talk:Menna

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

title: User talk:Menna


text:
User talk:Ratty-1

-- 23:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ratty-1


text:
User talk:Hrrrda

-- 23:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hrrrda


text:
User talk:Sougueur

-- 23:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sougueur


text:
User talk:Alara111

-- 00:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alara111


text:
User talk:Havefunwilltravel

-- 00:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Havefunwilltravel


text:
User talk:Goldenspectre

-- 00:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Goldenspectre


text:
User talk:L300

-- 00:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:L300


text:
User talk:Attydaryl

-- 01:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Attydaryl


text:
User talk:Luisvolvioacagarleslavida

-- 01:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Luisvolvioacagarleslavida


text:
User talk:Starprx

-- 01:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Starprx


text:
User talk:Addihockey10

Diego Grez return fire 01:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Addihockey10


text:
User talk:Cecisexy

-- 02:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cecisexy


text:
User talk:Wikipacocap

-- 02:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wikipacocap


text:
Telecom Commission of Solomon Islands issues phone company US$1M fine

March 3, 2011

The Telecommunications Commission of the Solomon Islands (TCSI) have issued a fine to a Papua New Guinea (PNG) mobile phone provider, for failing to meet the deadlines set out in the terms of its license. bemobile, the second mobile network service provider in the Solomon Islands, was supposed to have covered 50% of the Solomons by September 2010 and 75% by February 1st 2011. Both targets passed with their requirements unfulfilled.

The National Statistics Office and the TCSI investigated claims by bemobile that it had covered 64% of the Islands, but found the claims were incorrect. As a result, the TCSI have now issued a fine of to the company for breaking its operating license.

This is the second time bemobile failed to meet its contractual obligations, and the Telecommunications Commissioner, Nicholas Williams, made it clear that they had fallen short of the target, despite being given time to sort the issue out.

Williams said, "TCSI has found that bemobile has failed to meet its third coverage threshold of 75% of the population that commenced on 1 February 2011, as well as during the 14-day rectification period that was provided for under the licence."

Commissioner Williams also stated he could have raised the fine to US$2.5M, but he hoped that bemobile would use the extra money to meet its September deadline.

In a statement to the Commission, bemobile admitted it had not built any new transmitter masts since the latter part of 2010.


text:
User talk:Genevieve2

-- 02:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Genevieve2


text:
User talk:Maxwellalbert

-- 02:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maxwellalbert


text:
User talk:CakeGuru

-- 02:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:CakeGuru


text:
User talk:Anicecontributer

-- 02:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anicecontributer


text:
User talk:Atangeman

-- 02:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Atangeman


text:
User talk:Phbbetter

-- 02:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phbbetter


text:
User talk:Faelomx

-- 02:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Faelomx


text:
User talk:Seanjacobsen6

-- 02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Seanjacobsen6


text:
User talk:Tedfloyd

-- 02:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tedfloyd


text:
Thread:Comments:Space Shuttle Discovery launches on final mission/Comments from feedback form - "its amazing"

its amazing


text:
User talk:Aalkhalidi

-- 02:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aalkhalidi


text:
User talk:Daniel-crawford

-- 03:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Daniel-crawford


text:
User talk:Ana Maria Correa Henao

-- 03:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ana Maria Correa Henao


text:
User talk:Byhyun

-- 04:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Byhyun


text:
Thread:Comments:CNN journalist fired for controversial Twitter message/Comments from feedback form - "I think that too many people g..."

I think that too many people get fired for matters that are truly insignificant in the scheme of things. She never spoke out against Israel ... she simply expressed her feelings for someone she may have looked up to for completely different reasons to the ones making of the man a "bad" guy. It appears that the freedom of speech is guaranteed for a period of time required to get the sensitive even MORE sensitive. As an Israeli supporter, even I think that 'twas pettiness and irrational American self-righteousness that had her dismissed. It's a pity to see two nations you love appear so weak in sensitivity.


text:
User talk:Gsrao781

-- 04:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gsrao781


text:
User talk:Chrxstie

-- 05:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chrxstie


text:
User talk:Gowreesan

-- 05:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gowreesan


text:
User talk:Mpym

-- 05:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mpym


text:
User talk:Resero

-- 05:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Resero


text:
User talk:Hxh robb

-- 06:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hxh robb


text:
User talk:Phallastin

-- 06:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phallastin


text:
User talk:Ananyapaul

-- 07:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ananyapaul


text:
User talk:InTerZz

-- 07:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:InTerZz


text:
User talk:Sourjadeep111

-- 07:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sourjadeep111


text:
User talk:Rachitm

-- 07:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rachitm


text:
User talk:Prabinpanda2010

-- 07:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Prabinpanda2010


text:
User talk:Ameenmarji

-- 07:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ameenmarji


text:
User talk:GroveWanderer

-- 08:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:GroveWanderer


text:
User:Buttons0603

 Welcome to the user page of GeorgeGriffiths!

For my talk page, see here.

Hey guys! I joined Wikinews on the 26 February 2011.

I live in Sheffield, UK, near the Robin Brook and Bowman Brook. I am a Liberal Democrat supporter. I created the 2011 United Kingdom protests Wikipedia article, and have actively edited a Wikinews article about it (Thousands gather in London to protest against government cuts). I also uploaded the photo below.

title: User:Buttons0603


text:
User talk:Gerekyoksimdi

-- 08:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gerekyoksimdi


text:
User talk:LohmatiyyBOT

-- 08:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:LohmatiyyBOT


text:
User talk:Hussainidotnet

-- 08:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hussainidotnet


text:
User talk:Anandjaiswal9

-- 08:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anandjaiswal9


text:
User talk:Silvensis

-- 08:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Silvensis


text:
User talk:Typometer

-- 08:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Typometer


text:
User talk:Yaksar

-- 08:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yaksar


text:
User talk:Anikettiwari

-- 08:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anikettiwari


text:
User talk:Ts.prasanna

-- 09:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ts.prasanna


text:
User talk:Bagiai

-- 09:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bagiai


text:
User talk:Somanchisaikumar

-- 09:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Somanchisaikumar


text:
User talk:Tvrtkoj

-- 09:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tvrtkoj


text:
User talk:Marchelyna

-- 09:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marchelyna


text:
User talk:Nisetpdajsankha

-- 09:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nisetpdajsankha


text:
User talk:Gtre547o8

-- 09:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gtre547o8


text:
User talk:Yerbol abzhamiyev

-- 09:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yerbol abzhamiyev


text:
User talk:Pregiato2

-- 09:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pregiato2


text:
User talk:Alshoo9

-- 10:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alshoo9


text:
User talk:Morjpyang

-- 10:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Morjpyang


text:
User talk:Huangyabin001

-- 10:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Huangyabin001


text:
User talk:Pottyem

-- 10:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pottyem


text:
User talk:Kovaltara

-- 10:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kovaltara


text:
User talk:Dzoker

-- 10:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dzoker


text:
User talk:Stravidezt

-- 10:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Stravidezt


text:
User talk:Jezcope

-- 11:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jezcope


text:
User talk:Naomi greg

-- 11:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Naomi greg


text:
User talk:Jhobson9

-- 11:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jhobson9


text:
User talk:Daniel58

-- 11:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Daniel58


text:
User talk:Dexie.1217

-- 11:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dexie.1217


text:
User talk:Rafeyjadoon

-- 11:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rafeyjadoon


text:
User talk:Harshiniyuvaraj

-- 12:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Harshiniyuvaraj


text:
User talk:DokReggar

-- 13:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DokReggar


text:
User talk:Bizzman

-- 13:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bizzman


text:
User talk:Wrebecca.m10

-- 13:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wrebecca.m10


text:
User talk:Lakmal1984

-- 13:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lakmal1984


text:
User talk:City52

-- 13:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:City52


text:
User talk:Ho Kwok Sing

-- 13:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ho Kwok Sing


text:
User talk:Brucelee1995

-- 13:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Brucelee1995


text:
User talk:Gah1997

-- 13:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gah1997


text: File:Bemob line CMYK on wht-copy.gif

title: File:Bemob line CMYK on wht-copy.gif


text:
User talk:3smeHwp

-- 13:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:3smeHwp


text:
User talk:Goldbarren

-- 13:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Goldbarren


text:
User talk:森林伐採

-- 14:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:森林伐採


text:
User talk:Maazwrx

-- 14:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maazwrx


text:
User talk:Lordoftheoats

-- 14:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lordoftheoats


text:
Talk:Telecom Commission of Solomon Islands issues phone company US$1M fine

Translation of non-English sources
This is a HAND translation of the Tok Pisin language source used within this article, and I certify it to be correct to the best of my knowledge.

Papua New Guinea phone compnay, B-Mobile, i fesim wanpela bikpela fain moni long em i feil long provaidim ol sevis long Solomon Islands.

Jemima Garrett i ripot olsem, Solomon Islands Telecommunication Commission i putim wan milian US dola penalty igo long B-Moble longwanem em i bin feil long proviadim sevis igo long 75 pesent bilong populesan ikam na long fist of February olsem, oli laikim insait long licence bilong em.

Telecommunications Commissioner, Nicholas Williams, i tok BMobile i provaideim aninit long 50 pesent bilong ol pipal.

Dispela i namba-tu taim BMobile i fesim wanpela penalty long em i no mitim licence deadlines.

Commissioner Williams i tok, em i bin nap putim penality igo nap long 2.5 milian dolas, tasol ino mekim dispela long HOPE olsem, BMobile bai usim mo moni bilong mitim deadline bilong em long mun September dispela yar.

English version

Papua New Guinea phone company, B-Mobile, has received a huge monetary fine for failing to provide service to the Solomon Islands.

Jemima Garrett reports, that the Solomon Islands Telecommunication Commission has put a One Million US Dollar penalty on B-Mobile after it failed to provide its service to 75% of the population by February 1st, just like the license says it should.

Telecommunication Commissioner, Nicholas Williams, said that B-Mobile only barely provided to 50% of the people.

This is the second time B-Mobile received a fine for not meeting its licence deadlines.

Commissioner Williams says that he could have increased the penalty to 2.5 million Dollars, but he hopes that B-Mobile will use the extra money to try and meet its deadlines by September of this year.

BarkingFish (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Currencies
I don't want to joggle your elbow, but wouldn't the Australian Dollar be a fairly relevant currency? you might drop the USD in favour of the AUD. -  Amgine | t 16:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * The fine was issued by the TCSI in US Dollars, I felt it appropriate to keep in the article. BarkingFish (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Problems (noticed)
--Pi zero (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing in the sources that bemobile is the second largest provider in the SI.
 * I am seeing that the deadline for 50% was in September, rather than June.
 * Both issues fixed, thanks for pointing those out, Pi Zero :) BarkingFish (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Samanthag

-- 14:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Samanthag


text:
User talk:Daniela.r.r.v

-- 14:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Daniela.r.r.v


text:
User talk:Balajichinna

-- 14:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Balajichinna


text:
User talk:Mirrorsangle

-- 14:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mirrorsangle


text:
Thread:Comments:Voodoo sex ritual leaves woman dead/Comments from feedback form - "misleading title"/reply (4)

the issue of Voodoo of some flavor (which one?) being a joke has little to nothing to do with whether someone knocked over a candle during sex or whether someone was careless with a big object.

btw, what sort of sex doesn't involved ritual? sex usually involves very specific behavior often unique to a participant's culture. remove voodoo entirely and leave this as a story about a woman surrounded by candles for a sex act... and it still sounds like a ritual. 14:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Калан-Два

-- 15:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Калан-Два


text:
User talk:Maulin1990

-- 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Maulin1990


text:
User talk:SpoiledBrat

-- 15:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:SpoiledBrat


text:
User talk:Shahhanif90

-- 15:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shahhanif90


text:
User talk:Talktoemjoey

-- 15:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Talktoemjoey


text:
User talk:Flamewing123

-- 15:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Flamewing123


text:
User talk:Kemo kemo

-- 15:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kemo kemo


text:
User talk:Arjunsaini1999

-- 16:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arjunsaini1999


text:
User talk:Obywatelekultury

-- 16:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Obywatelekultury


text:
User talk:Druthix888

-- 16:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Druthix888


text:
Apple Inc. unveils iPad 2 tablet

March 3, 2011

In a media event on March 2, Apple Inc. unveiled its tablet computer, the successor to the company's. The announcement was made at the in San Francisco, California. CEO Steve Jobs appeared at the event and introduced the new product, with video messaging (with front and rear cameras) as well as a new dual-core  processor.

The iPad 2 is an all new design and has several improvements over the original iPad. The device runs on an dual-core CPU. According to Jobs, the CPU's new dual-core capability enhances multitasking and doubles the processing speed. Apple additionally introduced a magnetic '' accessory that snaps to the front screen of the device along with several new apps ported from the and the. These include, , and. The new iPad introduces front and rear cameras which enable FaceTime. The new tablet is 15% lighter and 33% thinner than the previous version - thinner than an - and has beveled edges. It will be available in black and white. The device continues to be capable of ten hours of battery life on a single charge.

The announcement comes after months of rumors about a successor to the original iPad. Competitors have designed tablets to compete with the iPad such as Motorola's powered by the  operating system. One research analyst predicted that iPads would still make up at least 20 million of the more than 24 million tablet computers sold in the United States in 2011. Another analyst credited the Apple's App store for iPad's continued success. The device will become available in the United States on March 11, 2011, available in 16, 32, or 64 gigabytes. iPad 2's 3G models can connect to the wireless networks of or  and. The iPad 2 will start at 499. In tandem with the announcement, Apple reduced the price of its original iPad to US$399. Shares of Apple inc. rose $2.81, closing at US$352.12 the day of the announcement.

title: Apple Inc. unveils iPad 2 tablet


text:
User talk:Kmldn1987

-- 16:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kmldn1987


text:
User talk:Somlimp

-- 16:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Somlimp


text:
User talk:Ying17zi

-- 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ying17zi


text:
User talk:Elrayhobbs

-- 16:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elrayhobbs


text:
User talk:Ejecutivo

-- 16:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ejecutivo


text:
User talk:EnricoDaVee

-- 16:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:EnricoDaVee


text:
User talk:Thomas Möst

-- 16:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thomas Möst


text:
User talk:Theslavemaster

-- 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Theslavemaster


text:
User talk:Pratik Bhanuse

-- 17:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pratik Bhanuse


text:
User talk:Aridk

-- 17:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aridk


text:
User talk:Kevinmiao120599

-- 17:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kevinmiao120599


text:
User talk:Unleashed.lalit

-- 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Unleashed.lalit


text:
User talk:Jouhaud

-- 18:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jouhaud


text:
User talk:Vinicius peixoto pinheiro

-- 18:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vinicius peixoto pinheiro


text:
User talk:Mnnitinter

-- 18:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mnnitinter


text:
User talk:Pyalaram

-- 18:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pyalaram


text:
User talk:Microchip08/Database dump/Reviewers/user

Trivial passing thought
As a refinement of
 * list

perhaps

--Pi zero (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Colomen

-- 18:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Colomen


text:
User talk:Bp6133

-- 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bp6133


text:
User talk:Cheesecottage

-- 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cheesecottage


text:
User talk:NikiWiki

-- 18:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:NikiWiki


text:
User talk:Nagmani6

-- 18:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nagmani6


text:
User talk:M.Gola

-- 19:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:M.Gola


text:
User talk:Luiyi897

-- 19:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Luiyi897


text:
User talk:جواد بحمد

-- 19:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:جواد بحمد


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2011/February

Interview with Mayor of Pichilemu
Hi all. I've got a question. I had to do a long homework on the reconstruction of Pichilemu last November. I had prepared some material (as you can see in this article) for it, but the Wikinews article missed the most important part: the interview with the Mayor, which eventually took place on November 26, 2010, almost a month after the article was published. I even filmed the interview with him, is there any possibility that the interview is still newsworthy enough to translate, and put it on Wikinews as a follow-up article? Thanks! Diego Grez return fire 21:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So... is anybody going to respond? Diego Grez return fire 20:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 * ✅ Diego Grez return fire 00:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

como cheguei aqui ?
Realizando pesquisas, e outras buscas , destaquei esta mega pagina. E a muito tempo tenho anotada este site na minha agenda hoje eu procurando um artigo descobri estas opções mestrybadahra@gmail.com todas as janelas estão em igleis e não consegui traduzi-las
 * We have articles in Portuguese. Nós temos artigos em Português. — μ 23:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol. That's horrible Portuguese :P.
 * How did I come here? – Doing searches, and other searches, I featured this great page. I have it on my lists for a long time, today wanting to look for an article I found these 'options', [but] all of them are in English and I haven't been able to translate them.
 * @Mestrybadahra: Use o Google Translate para traduzir. Diego Grez return fire 00:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Page ratings
I've been clicking on 'Random article' and after reading the articles I would rate them but I noticed that almost all the time I'm the only one who has rated. Is there a way to see which articles have received ratings and which ones have not? Are they categorized in any way? where I can click from a list of unrated pages to read and rate them? Special:RatingHistory only takes one page at a time, and Special:RatedPages doesn't seem to show any results (??). Maybe there should be some sort of ratings portal or something that collates various article ratings and statistics. I think there should also be more help pages regarding the ratings/feedback, I could not find anything in the help system about it. Is there a page somewhere that goes into detail about how it works? Like, does the article creator get notified somehow when someone rates their page? Oh and one more thing, isn't it a bit silly to have the ratings/feedback form on redirect pages?? Someone should probably fix that.. -- OlEnglish (talk) 04:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I have never looked into this before, but since no one has responded I just started. The extension is the Reader Feedback extension which was used on Strategy wiki. There's a range of feedback output supposed to be available, which are clearly not at the moment available. This may be due to the recent 1.17 upgrade, or it may be a configuration issue, but it will take me a bit to find out (I'm supposedly not here, but somewhere else...) I'll try to get back to this this afternoon/evening PST. -  Amgine | t 16:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 * If you click the randomizer, it is likely that the vast majority of articles will predate the extension being implemented. By extension, therefore, they are highly unlikely to have ratings. Further, iirc the default setting is something like 'over the last three months' - again, our archives go back years. I have an option for page rating which links to the data in my toolbox, but I forget if I've enabled some obscure option or gadget, or if that's there by default. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, that shouldn't matter. For example, our current lead article has 22 votes, but still does not generate graphic output "not enough votes". There may be some issues with the configuration, but I'm just beginning to figure out how it works. -  Amgine | t 04:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * *Looks* Wow, no, it doesn't now. I used to get graphs when it reached five votes. Each graph would come independantly; so if only one hit the five vote threshold, it would get a graph. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Appearently 219 reviews is not enough either. Filing a bug - 27695. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictures from Wikipedia?
Is there a way to paste pictures in WN that were uploaded locally to Wikipedia? --Ashershow1talk 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Short answer: No. Reality: I assume you know if it is on Commons we can use it fine. However, and image may be acceptable on Wikipedia through a fair use claim, but not so here; the simplest example being WP claiming fair use on an image from a news publication which we, as a competing news agency, cannot. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Opposition Leader predicts 'people's revolt' in Australia over carbon tax
reviewer requiredBKCW8 talk  10:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2011/February

Regarding images of Aselman
I know they have the wrong license, but this user has not been here in years. We have tried to contact him with no success. It is unlikely he will ever return unfortunately. Great contributor, but nonetheless, we know his images will always be "problem images." Can we make some kind of category that will just take them off that list? Something like a local only category... Just an idea. It bugs me to always see them there. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 * We could write fair use rationales. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * WMF resolutions be damned; the FUR is that these images were provided explicitly for use on enWN. I've fought over these before, they're staying unless the WMF asserts an editorial authority to delete them through use of a staff or developer account.--Brian McNeil / talk 19:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * They by definition do not fall under fair use (Because they were taken explicitly for us). There was discussion on the local Fair use policy talk page that the WMF at the time might have been open to letting us keep old images, provided that we don't use them on new articles. I think we should try to pursue that (A couple years late ;). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait... if the images were taken specifically for us, why is there a problem? And they're all CC-by-ND, which should allow for local project use in any case, I'd think. Gopher65talk 00:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Aselman's images are here under the Image use policy, Grant of License. Iirc, Adambro or someone else from commons was the person who created the whole 'problem images' category to support xyr war on en.WN's image policies (which had specific Board approval before we were allowed upload privileges.) -  Amgine | t 20:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Amgine is being charitable; in passing, I will mention the term "freetard", and swiftly move on.
 * First point: Is there anyone on-project in favour of keeping this idiotic category? It was created by Commoners and people from The Other Place who suffer from 'cultural insensitivity'. The ideals of Wikinews were never considered in the somewhat devisive poll on licencing, and a "dream-world" policy from WP perspective was imposed from the top down.
 * Wikinews has a local upload policy for precisely these sort of images; The Other Place has a local upload policy so that, once an iconic/breaking news/unreplaceable image is 'stale' they can rip it off. We need a policy that encourages would-be photojournalists - which ASelman qualified as.
 * So, cut to the chase: We ditch this idiotic category, and we encourage GoL" where usage is exclusive. If we nurture a would-be photojournalist, help protect what might be their livelihood, and showcase their work, they will - in the long term - look favourably on Wikinews. The alternative, as prescribed by the licensing "resolution" is like asking someone in the street to give you their shirt as it is prettier. We need to cultivate photographers who go into journalism; as a platform to start showing their work we build a relationship where photos MSM reject come to us. This was never ever considered in the licensing agreement; I'd rather be pragmatic, open the door to interesting relationship-building, and accomodate people who might need to live off their photography.
 * Give these folks a chance, I think it will pay off long-term. If Wikinews gets their "just starting in the biz 'Grassy Knoll'" photo, but leaves them in control of it commercially, we'll have hundreds of eager photographers. Else, we look like leeches. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm waaaay ahead of you on that. I cba launching an attack on the cat and subcats it/themselve(s) right now, but the offending template has been... rehabilitated. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Non-com is also now in line with policy. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, what is being suggested is in violation of a wmf board resolution . Well it is true that the original upload policy was also approved by the board, the newer resolution takes precedence (To quote: "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." ). I personally do not support new images under the nc or nd cc licenses (or GOL images) as i feel it defeats the whole point of Wikinews. However I feel old images that were once accepted, should always be accepted (at least on old articles). At the time of the foundation's resolution, it was claimed that the foundation would be supportive of allowing old images allowed under the previous policy to stay. We never followed that up. I think we should try to follow that up, instead of just ignoring the official policy and hoping no one notices. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, we've fought of wave upon wave of Commoners zealously trying to retrospectively apply the policy; I don't see why that should change. Their resolution was "defective by design" – not our problem, quite frankly.
 * Can you imagine trying to get another resolution through to support us? That'd be a waste of our efforts. If we have any Wikinewsies at Wikimania, get them to bring this issue up with the board. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well technically the policy is binding on us, and is retroactive (As it stands). Well ignoring it works for now, I don't really think that's a good position to generally hold. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe there is general agreement that free content is preferable, but there are irreplaceable images which are acceptable under the current Board policy. In practice this means any freely-licensed content is preferable to unfreely licensed content which is preferable to fair use/fair dealing content which is preferable to no content. Given this priority, nc/nd is far more desirable than fair use, and clearly should be more welcome than fair use. -  Amgine | t 19:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that may be logical, I don't think that is reflected in the reality of current policies. If I recall the argument that was used at the time was that a commercial fork would still be able to use any fair use photos, but they wouldn't be able to use any NC photos. My argument here is not so much that the foundations policy is a good one (or bad one for that matter), just that pretending it doesn't exist and hoping no one notices we are ignoring it is a bad idea. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the case. An NC/ND image would likely still be available to a commercial fork as a fair use image, for exactly the same reason any other fair use is defend-able (not, I point out, legal under US law.) -  Amgine | t 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been a problem for a while. It seems to me that the best response is to assert that standard journalistic practices (in particular the practice of keeping perfect copies of articles exactly as they appeared) renders these images effectively irreplaceable and thus arguably ok under the board's resolutions. The argument seems weak but plausible enough that unless we get the board specifically telling us they didn't intend to include this sort of thing we should be ok (and one advantage here is that the board just doesn't care very much about little projects like us so they aren't going to ever say that for the same reasons that they aren't ever going to adopt a fair use resolution that takes our needs into account). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fewer stories than leads
Last week we went for about three days without publishing a single story. We're on our way to duplicating that, and the days this week when we've published anything, we've usually published only one story. Doing the math, my question is this: when there are fewer than five articles left on main headlines, what do we do about the leads? --Pi zero (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ugh, this is getting ugly. The obvious solution is to write some articles :-) - but aside from that, the only thing I can think of is to make sure that the most recent five published articles are never archived (so the "recent" headlines list will always correspond with the lead stories). In the long run though, it might be worth considering pulling one or two of the leads so that it's easier keeping everything fresh - embarrassingly, all leads are well over two days old and some are nearing five days old at the moment. Tempodivalse [talk]  04:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did write an article. A so-so one, anyway, and although I was a little slow picking it up, it wasn't too late... when I submitted it, over a day ago.  Meanwhile, I kind of fried my brain on it, exercising all those little-used intellectual muscles, leaving me unfit to review the article since submitted by a newcomer, which is about ten hours behind mine on the queue.  So I might have done more good for the project by not writing one.

 * Actually, with javascript on it seems the number of articles listed is one less than the number unarchived, so we'd want six unarchived. My question was probably born of frustration, so not entirely fair:  I stopped archiving when we got down to ten articles.  Three of the ten are two days overdue, though, and two more will be due at the end of today UTC; so if somebody decided to enforce the archive policy at this point, the answer to my question would matter.  It just wouldn't be me doing the archiving.  --Pi zero (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, more than a full day later and we're still in the same situation we were before. I've had to fail one of the two articles in the queue for staleness, and the Indonesia story will follow suit as it passes the 3-4 day mark in a few hours. (I don't have the time or interest to review it right now, it's too long.) The January articles really do need to be archived though. I suggest removing one or two of the leads from the main page - they're all over three days old at this point and at our current output rate there's no realistic chance of keeping them fresh. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I archived two of the remaining January stories. The last one remaining doesn't have as blatant a shelf life, and I just left it, for now.

 * Participating on Wikinews is a strange combination of immersing oneself in moment-to-moment stuff —which is the nature of news— and not losing track of the long-term big picture. It's unfortunate that things aren't moving at the moment, and working to get them moving is a fine thing to do, but one also has to look at long-term solutions.  We need to make it easier both to write and to review articles — not lowering our standards, but making it easier to live up to them.  Automated tools should be the key; I'm actually starting to study javascript, for just that reason.  (I'm a programmer, if out of practice lately, and in the past I never balked at learning a new language.  How hard can it be... don't answer that. :-)
 * Making writing easier should also have the secondary benefits of making it easier to review newbies' articles (the less awful they are, the easier for reviewers), and —perhaps— somewhat lessening the sting to the author if it doesn't work out.
 * We need to make reviewing easier, by finding a way to let multiple reviewers share the burden for each article. I say this about every six months.  There's a good reason why it hasn't happened, despite my repetition:  neither I nor (afaik) anyone else knows how to do it.  But mentioning it every once in a while may help to stir up thoughts, and eventually perhaps one of us will get an insight.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Review
The review template text is ghastly out of date. Rather than flounder around with edits and non-self-sights directly on the template, given that the template page has a noincluded official-policy notice, this seems a reasonable place to discuss an update. (A flagged discussion on template talk would be possible, but the water cooler generally gets more attention faster.)

The template now looks like this:

I tentatively suggest changing it to look like this:

--Pi zero (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The danger with verbosity is that it alienates new users. I wouldn't mind seeing a hide/show box to hide some of the jargon -- new users don't need to know technical instructions to the reviewer, only that only reviewers can review. Thinking about it, I'm unconvinced we need any technical instructions on there anyway: (*swivels in his seat towards Bawolff's end of the conference table*) if we take EzPR out of gadgets and stick it into core, we could just stick a [javascript:Bawolff.review.start click here to begin your review] link into the template, and only display the manual process if .js is disabled. We could also stick tabs into the template, á la howdy. (By the way, I do think the template needs overhauling, but adding text is the wrong way to go about it. YMMV.) — μ 15:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Two quick thoughts.
 * Now that you mention it, I'd favor moving all the manual-review instructions, and perhaps all reviewer instructions whatsoever, to a separate page somewhere; by avoiding any mention of publish here, we might significantly reduce incidence of newbies attempting self-publish. (I do think we should have manual-review instructions somewhere, so once in a blue moon when someone has to, they've got help to do it right.)
 * My sense is EPR isn't ready to internalize, because we haven't got all the bugs ironed out yet.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Side-note: Why have people become afraid to self-sight outside of namespace? It's often a cool way to seek second opinion, or confirmation you've done it right, but the new policy was brought in to protect mainspace. It's all there in the ramble, amongst various other notions. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Gigantic +1 to everything said here. I don't think i've ever actually read what the review template says. EasyPeerReview is already loaded in core js (for people in editor) group for the last little while. Just never got around to killing the gadget. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Okay, here's another version. So far, I've still kept one line of basic instruction for reviewers, plus the extra notice if there's a talk page.  Do we want to go all the way to no reviewer instructions at all?

 * (Note: I think asking for a second opinion on potentially tricky or controversial non-mainspace edits is a healthy trend, and can help to steer well clear of potential edit wars.  My point was that this situation required an actual discussion, because non-self-sighting just wouldn't provide enough mutli-way bandwidth.)  --Pi zero (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break #1

 * We could probably cut it down some more by removing the instruction to put it at the top of the page. For me, at least, I rely mainly on CAT:REV (or, more specifically, the gadgets that use it) – it doesn't matter where review is, as long as it's on the page. Now that EPR has a talk-page sniffing thing, we can cut out that too.

 * We probably need a link to a page explaining what the hell this delete ← abandoned ← stale ← develop → review → publish → archive thing is anyway. I remember being thoroughly confused when I first encountered it. Maybe a "what does this mean?" section? — μ 02:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The sheer compactness of that version is appealing. One could imagine re-adding an abbreviated form of the talk-page-reminder magic on the line about please use EPR, without forcing an extra line (on a standard-sized screen)... but, even though I'm a big fan of both reminders and non-JS magic, I'm not sure the reminder would still be worthwhile when that short.

 * On balance, I like it. --Pi zero (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I much prefer the last, short version posted. The review template has been growing in size ever since it was first created, and it was getting ungainly:). Gopher65talk 12:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Since the template is effectively considered policy in its own right, I hereby the nice, compact version. Here's my £0.02 towards consensus. Newcomers, who the text is most important to, don't want a scary, complicated set of instructions - they want it clear, concise and small. (My gripe about non-self-sighting is withdrawn on this particular one; fair enough, though, I note it is a more general thing than just this. I'm actually not sure why I mentioned it here - saw an oppertunity? :)  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Per vague consensus already seemingly gathered, I OBJECT to the new shrunken template, please make the fucking text bigger since without blowing your font up it's a git to read, and you could easily miss information. BarkingFish (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Trimmed further
I did want to use Dynamic navigation small, but it doesn't show as auto-collapsed. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I like this one more than the one above or the one below; shorter than the one above, and I find two separate lines neater than a paragraph that wraps around onto a second line. I'll support any of the three for a consensus, though.  We've spent enough time on this; let's pick one and go with it.  --Pi zero (talk) 07:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Even more

 * — μ 00:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Movie interview
From what I understand, RockerballAustralia, is the director, writer and one of the cast members of a 2011 film called Localise This. RockerballAustralia asked me to interview him, to which I agreed. However, Pi zero has pointed out that an article like this may have "some element of self-promotion (for some value of self) about doing a news report about a Wikinewsie's movie". What is the best way to approach an idea like this? What do you think? -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 01:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The mythic NPOV is a very worthy goal, but it should not be used to prevent useful content generation. News of interest to at least a neighbourhood is our lowest measurement; clearly my doing coverage of how my neighbourhood is annoyed by damage to the street by a current construction project will have some elements of bias, but no one else at en.WN could do this reporting. Likewise, a third-party Wikinewsie interviewing a fellow wikinewsie will have some POV bias, but hopefully not enough to prevent publication. We don't need POV-paranoia any more than we need overt POV; we work to minimize POV, but we cannot eradicate it. -  Amgine | t 21:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * By and large agree with Amgine; NPOV is an overly idealistic goal for a news site. The vast majority of interviews we conduct adopt a 'soft touch' towards the interviewed. Take a look at the article on the 2,000th enWP FA. Here you'll find something not being hard on those interviewed in any way whatsoever. However, I got what I think is a really interesting article with broad appeal. What makes the difference is the questions asked, and a cooperative subject. When it comes to an utterly uncooperative interviewee, the shoe is on the other foot - if not on a ballistic trajectory towards their head. In this example, I'd suggest asking for a preview of the film for several 'newsies, some outline of why an interview would be newsworthy, then - away from RockerBall's view - preparation of questions for something like an IRC interview. We're not "Hello!" magazine, we have different ideas on newsworthiness, as well as a more realistic view on NPOV than Wikipedia. This is a challenging item, but not impossible. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Preview's here (I'm hoping it works)--RockerballAustralia c 06:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or here

The peer review mechanism
I made this remark on BarkingFish's user talk just recently, and on consideration, should offer it here.

 * I see a serious design defect in the mechanism of peer review. We expect one person to do everything, with no safety net against mistakes and a reasonable chance that mistakes won't even be detected promptly. Not only is that error-prone in itself, but as site activity increases, the proportion of publication mistakes increases, that raises tensions, and the project turns into a powder keg. Recalling the way the site exploded last year, I'd say this design defect really needs fixing.

Note there are two parts to this: that peer review is by a single person, and that there is no redundancy. Those two are not independent. --Pi zero (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The redundancy can't be added without also reducing the individual burden, since the burden is already so high that things go stale waiting for review.
 * It may be unsafe to split the burden without adding redundancy, because the split could open the door to new kinds of mistakes caused by mis-coordination.
 * So, er, "How?" — μ 14:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... Yes.

 * Months of wracking my brains over this on my own, with little to show for it, make me think it needs ideas from more minds. So I've brought it here.

 * A few thoughts. Maybe they'll stir someone else's thinking.
 * Peer review can be split in two directions: by task, and by place in the article.
 * We already divide by task, into five subtasks. The number could be increased, and/or we could have a hierarchy of subtasks; drawbacks are greater bureaucratic overhead and less flexibility.  The biggest subtasks —copyright, fact-checking— don't seem amendable to division into subtasks (noting that fact-checking is already a proper subtask of "verifiability", another being suitability of sources).
 * Dividing by place in the article is already possible for a single reviewer; cf. onScreenEdit. Coordinating something by-place for multiple reviewers will likely require serious javascript:  whole-page edits are the smallest granularity supported by the wiki software.  Blue-skying, perhaps an auxiliary page could be used for coordination data; flaggedrevs might establish authorization, which implies the auxiliary would be in a non-main namespace that supports flaggedrevs.  The auxiliary data would have to somehow not get lost when the article gets renamed.  And coordination has to allow for edits by reviewers in mid-review.  Implementation is left as an exercise for the student.
 * Not all subtasks would much benefit from being broken up this way; likely prime beneficiaries are fact-checking, copyright.
 * Redundancy is more important in some subtasks than in others — like verification and copyright. Redundant checks should probably have coarse granularity, looking at the big picture; noting, they must be a good deal easier than single-person review, or we aren't better off.  The auxiliary data left over from earlier by-place coordination might somehow be exploited as an aid here.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried reviewing per-revision on a couple of articles last month to see if it would translate well to multi-user per-revision reviewing. Although, most of the time, it worked well, there were times when either users created the article ready for review, with no earlier revisions, ex. this one. Other times, users added information first and only stuck sources in at the last moment before the review tag. I would still push for a multi-tier FlaggedRevs system in which edits are tagged "checked" (internally) before being tagged "published" (and off to Google News etc.) — re-flags are always quicker to be reviewed than new articles, it seems. I don't know if that's because they are normally minor edits, or because it's easier to review a single addition than an entire article. Nethertheless, I think that per-revision review, bundled with an alternative, back-up, system for the articles that don't conform to the system, might be what we are looking for. — μ 19:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * On consideration, I'm inclined to think this wouldn't work.
 * The definition of publication would have to be changed, to use a higher level of review. That seems likely to be, ah, messy to implement.  We'd want to be getting a very high-quality result to justify that: something we expect to completely satisfy our needs for years to come (maybe forever).  But I don't think the level of satisfaction would be nearly that high:
 * The efficacy of per-revision review seems to me to depend entirely on a peculiar development pattern. The revisions have to incrementally build the content, without any of the later edits modifying any of the earlier content.  Otherwise, in order to review an earlier revision you would have to review content that wasn't even going to be in the revision that's actually a candidate for publication.  And what if you can't review a certain revision because there's a defect in it?  You can't correct the defect because you'd be wiping out the later revisions — and the defect might already get fixed in some later revision anyway.
 * It sounds as if you really want to review one paragraph at a time, which is (a slightly restricted version of) what I meant by splitting review by place in the article. If the revision history just happens to be lined up that way, then you can use the revision history to simulate splitting the revision by paragraph; but it's really easy for the revision history to have deviated from that pattern (even if it approximates it), and then you're out of luck.

 * Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you have in mind. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Felipe961210

-- 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Felipe961210


text:
User talk:Brunosteinbruch

-- 19:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Brunosteinbruch


text:
User talk:Kotwigi

-- 19:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kotwigi


text: Comments:Local government officials confiscate London ice cream made from human breast milk for health reasons


text:
User talk:הדס.ו.

-- 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:הדס.ו.


text:
User talk:SanjarBest

-- 20:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:SanjarBest


text:
User talk:Jnorthdur

-- 20:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jnorthdur


text:
User talk:SindyKubitschek

-- 20:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:SindyKubitschek


text:
User talk:Figareo

-- 20:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Figareo


text:
User talk:Winter93

-- 20:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Winter93


text:
User talk:62.25.109.195

Welcome
Δεν δοδγε  t\c 20:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:62.25.109.195


text:
User talk:Andrea Paganin

-- 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andrea Paganin


text:
User talk:Vdawesar

-- 20:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vdawesar


text:
User talk:Redhanker

-- 21:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Redhanker


text:
User talk:Kittiesonfire16

This page has been blanked as a courtesy to other editors. BarkingFish (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kittiesonfire16


text:
User talk:PeeOnFavonian

I amn

Hello. I am sorry to inform you that the username you have chosen violates Wikinews's username policy because it's offensive. I have indefinitely blocked your account from editing because of this. If you wish to contribute to Wikinews in a positive fashion, please do so by creating another account with a name that conforms with our username policy from Special:CreateAccount. If you believe this block was made in error or wish to contest it, please add to this page. Thank you.

Pi zero (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PeeOnFavonian


text:
Thread:Comments:Local government officials confiscate London ice cream made from human breast milk for health reasons/ooo its perfectly natural

my testicles are natural as well, most people dont want to lick them however


text:
User talk:Melchizedek1116

-- 21:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Melchizedek1116


text:
User talk:Munrou

-- 21:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Munrou


text:
User talk:Williamlhamilton

-- 22:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Williamlhamilton


text:
User talk:Mcandre

-- 22:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mcandre


text: User talk:Kittiesonfire17

title: User talk:Kittiesonfire17


text:
User talk:Hiyayaywhopee

-- 22:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hiyayaywhopee


text:
User talk:Cowik

-- 22:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cowik


text:
User talk:Ecelestinmed

-- 22:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ecelestinmed


text:
User talk:Camelot28

-- 23:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Camelot28


text:
User talk:The Alzabo

-- 23:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:The Alzabo


text:
User talk:Tom8866

-- 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tom8866


text:
Thread:Comments:Opposition Leader predicts 'people's revolt' in Australia over carbon tax/Comments from feedback form - "I would be happy with a carbom..."

I would be happy with a carbom tax providing we didn't continue to export coal which is the real problem


text:
User talk:MisterSanderson

-- 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MisterSanderson


text:
User talk:Nexusek12

-- 23:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nexusek12


text:
Thread:Comments:Egyptian man names daughter 'Facebook'/Comments from feedback form - "That kid is going to get heeps..."

That kid is going to get heeps of teasing...


text:
Thread:Comments:Australian town to change name to promote road safety/Comments from feedback form - "I don't think that will really..."

I don't think that will really stop dumb people who want to speed.


text:
Thread:Comments:Ahmadinejad criticizes Paul the octopus/Comments from feedback form - "Poor Paul, he is dead now anyw..."

Poor Paul, he is dead now anyway.


text:
Thread:Comments:Man disguised as Darth Vader robs bank/Comments from feedback form - "Why did the customer attack th..."

Why did the customer attack the robber?! I wouldn't do that even if it WAS a joke!!!


text:
User talk:LayZeeDK

-- 00:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:LayZeeDK


text:
User talk:Loicuagio84

-- 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Loicuagio84


text:
User talk:Ghybu

-- 00:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ghybu


text:
User talk:Immibis

-- 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Immibis


text:
User talk:Wordisbond

-- 00:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wordisbond


text:
User talk:Ramireo~enwikinews

-- 00:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ramireo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ramireo~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) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ramireo~enwikinews


text:
Talk:Apple Inc. unveils iPad 2 tablet

Move
Mono, why is Apple Inc. releases iPad 2 tablet a better title? It won't be released till March 11. I haven't found any better synonyms. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture
The caption under the two ipads is wrong. It should say ipad 1 is left and ipad 2 is right. Pretty egregious error. --Ashershow1talk 17:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * <chuckle> and here I was building a list of images detailing why... -  Amgine | t 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

title: Talk:Apple Inc. unveils iPad 2 tablet


text: Comments:Apple Inc. unveils iPad 2 tablet


text:
User talk:Dollymaniaco09

-- 01:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dollymaniaco09


text:
User talk:Sz1pu 01

-- 01:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sz1pu 01


text:
User talk:Lucas Borchs

-- 01:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lucas Borchs


text:
User talk:Viswta

-- 01:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Viswta


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple Inc. releases iPad 2 tablet/White iPad

What is all this fuss about the white iPhone/iPad? It only means longer waiting periods if you don't want a particular color. Why white? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


text: Comments:Telecom Commission of Solomon Islands issues phone company US$1M fine


text:
User talk:JamesKBlakeIII

-- 01:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JamesKBlakeIII


text:
User talk:Enfuabcmgd

-- 01:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Enfuabcmgd


text:
User talk:Lady Lyllo

-- 01:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lady Lyllo


text:
User talk:Cardiazher

-- 02:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cardiazher


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple Inc. releases iPad 2 tablet/Title

THey haven't released it yet, it was announced.


text:
User talk:Jsfouche

-- 02:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jsfouche


text:
User talk:Corrigeons

-- 02:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Corrigeons


text:
User talk:Hoangthangvip01

-- 02:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hoangthangvip01


text:
User talk:Wildfire1981

-- 02:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wildfire1981


text:
User talk:Wangond

-- 02:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wangond


text:
User talk:UFRAlucard

-- 03:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:UFRAlucard


text:
User talk:DJ Angel RIZ

-- 03:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DJ Angel RIZ


text:
User talk:Geread

-- 03:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Geread


text:
User talk:Thaliomiles

-- 04:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thaliomiles


text:
User talk:DM74

-- 04:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DM74


text:
User talk:Ewgdm

-- 04:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ewgdm


text:
User talk:Evilduke

-- 04:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Evilduke


text:
User talk:Richard24simon

-- 05:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Richard24simon


text:
User talk:Emanek

-- 05:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Emanek


text:
User talk:Mtwilson1200

-- 05:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mtwilson1200


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple Inc. releases iPad 2 tablet/White iPad/reply

I would prefer dark blue, but Apple doesn't have much for customisation themselves.


text:
User talk:Anafrancescap

-- 05:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anafrancescap


text:
User talk:Pst434

-- 05:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pst434


text:
User talk:Robotronk

-- 05:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robotronk


text:
Thread:Comments:Local government officials confiscate London ice cream made from human breast milk for health reasons/ooo its perfectly natural/reply

There are some people who, if they could get people to pay for the privilege of licking their testicles, would definately set up shop.


text:
User talk:Mariuspremia

-- 06:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mariuspremia


text:
User talk:Gopinath~enwikinews

-- 06:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

title: User talk:Gopinath~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Bunbkk

-- 06:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bunbkk


text:
User talk:Jnac

-- 06:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jnac


text:
User talk:Dove-young

-- 06:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dove-young


text:
User talk:Katka108

-- 07:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Katka108


text:
User talk:Wiki33139

-- 07:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wiki33139


text:
User talk:Weyseal

-- 07:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Weyseal


text:
User talk:Andalov

-- 07:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andalov


text:
User talk:Yigitfb

-- 08:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yigitfb


text:
User talk:Bgstalkerbg

-- 08:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bgstalkerbg


text:
User talk:Wwerfc7

-- 08:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wwerfc7


text:
User talk:Nicolaas.visser

-- 08:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nicolaas.visser


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple Inc. unveils iPad 2 tablet/iPad 3

Apple product updates are a pretty consistent annual occurrence. Recent anonymous interviews with Apple employees have suggested that the iPad 2 is just a stop-gap measure and that an iPad 3 overhaul will soon be on the way. Will you hold out for the next iPad?


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple Inc. releases iPad 2 tablet/White iPad/reply (2)

I was hoping for a lime green. I guess a Smart Cover is about as close to customization you're going to get. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Ljg49

-- 09:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ljg49


text:
User talk:Samih algepale07

-- 09:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Samih algepale07


text:
User talk:McCharty13

-- 09:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:McCharty13


text:
User talk:MinSung Kyung

-- 09:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MinSung Kyung


text:
User talk:Corran.pl

-- 09:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Corran.pl


text:
User talk:Akhilkmr18

-- 09:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Akhilkmr18


text:
User talk:Snowgene

-- 09:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Snowgene


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple Inc. unveils iPad 2 tablet/iPad 3/reply

Source that; add that.


text:
User talk:Wiqi21

-- 10:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wiqi21


text:
User talk:Cathrywendy

-- 10:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cathrywendy


text:
User talk:OtherAdam

-- 10:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:OtherAdam


text:
User talk:Berlu87

-- 10:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Berlu87


text:
User talk:Artoasis

-- 10:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Artoasis


text:
User talk:Teryx2

-- 10:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Teryx2


text:
User talk:Deng Duang

-- 10:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deng Duang


text:
User talk:Mattte

-- 10:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mattte


text:
User talk:Sivasankaripg

-- 10:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sivasankaripg


text:
User talk:Mhersmh

-- 10:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mhersmh


text:
User talk:JDias12

-- 11:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JDias12


text:
User talk:Wilberforcehumphries

-- 11:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wilberforcehumphries


text:
Thread:Comments:Local government officials confiscate London ice cream made from human breast milk for health reasons/ooo its perfectly natural/reply (2)

come in here and go lick my testicles for only 2 dollars


text:
User talk:Al3ynawy

-- 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Al3ynawy


text:
User talk:Rjeff

-- 11:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rjeff


text:
User talk:Fcarbonara

-- 12:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fcarbonara


text:
User talk:Rehan Nasser

-- 12:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rehan Nasser


text:
User talk:Reza N Muhammad

-- 12:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Reza N Muhammad


text:
User talk:William Allen Simpson

-- 12:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:William Allen Simpson


text:
User talk:Karlluzz

-- 12:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Karlluzz


text:
User talk:Biuro Poselskie Szczecin

-- 12:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Biuro Poselskie Szczecin


text:
User talk:Mohamedfirthousezahir

-- 12:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mohamedfirthousezahir


text:
User talk:Daxterminator

-- 12:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Daxterminator


text:
User talk:Germancarrillo

-- 13:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Germancarrillo


text:
User talk:Bzdzielrafal

-- 13:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bzdzielrafal


text:
User talk:בר675

-- 13:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:בר675


text:
User talk:Desertxsongx

-- 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Desertxsongx


text:
User talk:Nitin842000

-- 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nitin842000


text:
User talk:Omar Ameen

-- 13:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Omar Ameen


text:
User talk:Ldr-presse

-- 13:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ldr-presse


text:
User talk:Sandukika

-- 14:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sandukika


text:
User talk:Heryk95

-- 14:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Heryk95


text:
User talk:MarcusPrometheus

-- 14:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MarcusPrometheus


text:
User talk:Beta4me

-- 14:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

Your recent contributions are considered to be spam and have been reverted or deleted. Should you believe that your contributions are not spam, please argue your case on your talk page, or in WN:ALERT.

Further spamming may result in your editing privileges being removed. Please contribute to Wikinews in a constructive fashion instead. Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Pi zero (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Beta4me


text:
Thread:Comments:France calls on Libyan leader to step down/France should invade Libya./reply (2)

why should france re establish its colonial africa they are there own people now and leave them be.


text:
User talk:Kavin1997

-- 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kavin1997


text:
User talk:Gkearney1

-- 14:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gkearney1


text:
User talk:OI-10-a.pedrosa

-- 15:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:OI-10-a.pedrosa


text:
User talk:Wisden

-- 15:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Wisden


text:
User talk:Gfsas

-- 15:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I'm an administrator from french wikinews and thank you for this welcome message that's been around a year... If you want to write me, please do it here. Thank you.Gfsas (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gfsas


text:
User talk:Dsiltcat

-- 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dsiltcat


text:
User talk:Aklenhayal

-- 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aklenhayal


text:
User:Aklenhayal

Herkese Merhaba...

title: User:Aklenhayal


text:
User talk:Cundallini

-- 16:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cundallini


text:
User talk:Devarajharsha

-- 16:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Devarajharsha


text:
Thread:Comments:Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden/Comments from feedback form - "This article is false and misl..."

This article is false and misleading. Mr. Asssange has not been accused of sexual assault on either side, but sexual molestation, which is unprovable, thus he cannot be extradited. Assange has done nothing to be arrested, let alone an arrest warrant. This is article is has presented misleading and untrue information.


text:
User talk:Slmnwise

-- 16:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Slmnwise


text:
User talk:Melis Aytaş

-- 17:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Melis Aytaş


text:
User talk:AdamWimborne

-- 17:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AdamWimborne


text:
User talk:AIRA2001

-- 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AIRA2001


text:
User talk:Chromodynamic

-- 17:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chromodynamic


text:
User talk:Rroveri

-- 17:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rroveri


text:
Thread:Comments:Wikileaks founder Julian Assange to be extradited to Sweden/Comments from feedback form - "This article is false and misl..."/reply

You are absolutely spot on, and I will make this correction to the article immediately. The BBC have made the error in this case, since their sources clearly stated that Mr Assange "should be extradited to Sweden to face sexual assault allegations...". Thank you for pointing out this error, it will be fixed.


text:
User talk:Nieramos

-- 18:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nieramos


text:
User talk:Mommasomy

-- 18:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mommasomy


text:
User talk:DeGilian

-- 18:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DeGilian


text:
User talk:DrSultan85

-- 18:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DrSultan85


text:
User talk:Bekogruppe1

-- 18:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bekogruppe1


text:
User talk:Alwaysdirty

-- 18:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alwaysdirty


text:
User talk:Usmanahmedwahla

-- 18:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Usmanahmedwahla


text:
Egyptian prime minister steps down; armed forces appoint former transport minister to position

March 4, 2011

, Egypt's acting, has resigned, , now in control of the country, announced yesterday.

Shafik was appointed to his position by then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak during the 2011 Egypt anti-government protests, not long before Mubarak decided to resign as president on February 11, 2011. Meanwhile, a number of his cabinet ministers have retained their positions. Shafik had received criticism for his negative attitude towards young protesters and his "inadequate vision", according to the.

In response to the announcement of Shafik's resignation,, a executive, credited with organizing the first demonstration and a former political prisoner, wrote on Twitter, a micro-blogging website, "Power to the people!" During the Egyptian protests, one of the key demands of the protesters was that Shafik step down from his acting minister status. , another pro-democracy activist and co-recipient of the, tweeted on Twitter that Egypt is "on the right track."

The statement released by the Council also announced as the new prime minister. "The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces decided to accept the resignation of Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq and appointed Essam Sharaf to form the new government," the armed forces said on social networking website Facebook.

Sharaf formerly held the position as the. The Los Angeles Times reports that he departed from that position five years ago, during the aftermath of numerous train collisions in which the Egyptian government was accused of carelessness.

Former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak was considered by Egypt on Monday, as was his family. According to, Mubarak is not in the good health and has yet been  seen or heard from in public  since his resignation.

Despite having achieved one of their aims, protesters intend to continue demonstrating with mass rallies on Friday because all their demands have yet to be met. The removal of a current emergency law is amongst those demands. The law allows the Egyptian government to place people under arrest without charges brought against them. In a statement, the January 25 Youth Coalition said that they "still demand a specific time frame to achieve the rest of the revolution's basic demands." The protesters also continue to request the removal of ministers with ties to the old regime.


text:
User talk:Dawid Deutschland

-- 18:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dawid Deutschland


text:
User talk:Algr

-- 18:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Algr


text:
User talk:PrincessofLlyr

-- 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PrincessofLlyr


text:
User talk:Sakuliini

-- 19:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sakuliini


text:
User talk:Jovana93

-- 19:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jovana93


text:
User talk:Matinier

-- 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Matinier


text:
US Supreme Court upholds right to picket military funerals

March 4, 2011

The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the protects the free speech rights of an anti-gay church that pickets the funerals of U.S. soldiers, even if they use hateful and offensive language.

In an 8 to 1 decision, the Court upheld a lower court's ruling that struck down an award of $5 million to a slain soldier's father, Albert Snyder. Snyder had sued Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church of, Kansas for picketing the funeral of his son, 20-year-old Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder who was killed in Iraq in 2006. Snyder said the protest caused him emotional pain and turned his son's funeral into a "circus." The protest was well publicized, a was called, and the funeral procession was diverted away from the protesters, who carried signs such as "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags" and "America Is Doomed." The funeral itself was not disturbed and it was carried out on public land, following local laws. Snyder learned of the content of the slogans only later on television.

Snyder's son was not a homosexual. The church pickets military soldiers' funerals because they believe that the United States is too tolerant of homosexuality and that the death of U.S. soldiers is divine retribution. They have picketed more than 600 funerals.

The Court's decision rested in part on the basis that the subject of the church's speech related to controversial public issues and was not a private attack on Snyder. "[The church] conducted its picketing peacefully on matters of public concern at a public place adjacent to a public street," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in his opinion for the court. "Such space occupies a special position in terms of First Amendment protection." Roberts said that large number of protests conducted by the church against many groups, including Catholics and Jews, is evidence that Phelps and his church were not personally attacking Snyder, but were "expressing deeply held views on public topics." Roberts wrote, "As a nation we have chosen ... to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

, the only Justice to rule against the Church wrote that, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case. In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims."

Snyder was disappointed in the ruling: "My first thought was eight justices don't have the common sense God gave a goat. We found out today we can no longer bury our dead in this country with dignity."


text:
User talk:Jones2012

-- 21:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jones2012


text:
US World War II veteran Leonard Lomell dies aged 91

March 6, 2011

Former United States soldier and World War II veteran died on Tuesday at the age of 91, his family revealed on Thursday. Lomell was awarded the  for his actions on June 6th, 1944, also known as. As a platoon leader in the US Army's, Lomell and other men climbed sheer cliffs to destroy German artillery.

J. Mark Mutter, a historian from Lomell's hometown of, said, "He was one of the greatest men of the greatest generation. He was so typical of that generation and put his medals and uniform in the attic after the war and built a whole new world".

Lomell was in charge of his platoon when they were set the task of destroying five German coastal guns based at the top of between two of the landing beaches. To get to the guns they had to climb up 100-foot cliffs, with covering fire from troops based on the ground for protection. Many of Lomell's men were either shot and killed or fell to their deaths.

After Lomell and others reached the top of the cliff and fought back the Germans, it became clear that the artillery was not where it was previously believed to be. Lomell and two other Rangers found the guns unprotected in an orchard and destroyed them using grenades and explosives. For his actions historian said that, other than future U.S President, Lomell was the one individual most responsible for the success of D-Day.

Funeral arrangements are being planned and have not yet been released.


text:
Talk:Egyptian prime minister steps down; armed forces appoint former transport minister to position

Shorter headline please; less verbose wording in the article. It's rather hard to read at the moment. Recommend article failure. — μ 21:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:A2maihi

-- 21:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:A2maihi


text:
User talk:Melly.k

-- 21:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Melly.k


text:
User talk:Mydogsnameisjj

-- 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mydogsnameisjj


text:
User talk:Dirdawuth

-- 22:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dirdawuth


text:
User talk:Aph kay

-- 22:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aph kay


text:
User talk:Dylanspronck

-- 22:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dylanspronck


text:
User talk:25juanse25

-- 22:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:25juanse25


text:
User talk:Darkclaw~enwikinews

-- 22:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

thank you,thank you! i LOVE it here!!!Darkclaw (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC) code 459679

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 Darkclaw. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Darkclaw~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

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

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

title: User talk:Darkclaw~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Agirlone

-- 22:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Agirlone


text:
User talk:Bdrinkwater

-- 22:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bdrinkwater


text:
User talk:Yaelcesar

-- 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yaelcesar


text:
User talk:Moh2010med

-- 23:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Moh2010med


text:
User talk:Gnegnec

-- 23:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gnegnec


text:
Talk:US Supreme Court upholds right to picket military funerals

Pull-quote
QuoteLeft and QuoteRight templates are only for quotes taken from the body of the article (pull-quotes); they aren't for supplementary material. --Pi zero (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ok, fixed it. Mattisse (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Use v. Used etc.
I am using the present tense because this applies to whatever group may protest at funerals, so long as they act the same way this church did. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Adalpos

-- 23:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Adalpos


text:
User talk:1framer1

-- 00:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:1framer1


text:
User talk:Omgosh30

-- 00:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Omgosh30


text:
User talk:Matanya

-- 00:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Matanya


text:
Talk:US World War II veteran Leonard Lomell dies aged 91

Decorated
Saying he is "decorated" is somewhat POV. It assumes he was decorated with awards and any other soldier with an article was not. The focus should be on what actions make him more prominent than other soldiers. What was it that made him stand out from everyone else? Was he the last survivor of of a division/platoon etc? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:43, 4 March 2011

Date of death
What day did he die? The news was apparently first reported in various news articles on March 2, saying he died "yesterday", which would be March 1. The date of his death should be reported in the article. Mattisse (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Too bad if this article does not get published

 * Personally I think being awarded the Distinguished Service Cross is being "decorated". This nice little article should have been a "collaboration" and the minor problems fixed before it went "stale". Just my opinion. Mattisse (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1190112 [Passed]
Very glad to hear I was wrong. --Pi zero (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


text: Comments:Egyptian prime minister steps down; armed forces appoint former transport minister to position


text:
User talk:Havaniceday

-- 01:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Havaniceday


text:
User talk:L30marin

-- 01:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:L30marin


text:
User talk:Batman489

-- 01:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Batman489


text: Comments:US Supreme Court upholds right to picket military funerals


text:
User talk:Kittiesonfire21

-- 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kittiesonfire21


text:
User talk:Kittiesonfire22

-- 01:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kittiesonfire22


text:
User talk:Aurmegil

-- 02:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Aurmegil


text:
User talk:Pwnpanwar

-- 02:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pwnpanwar


text:
Thread:Comments:Local government officials confiscate London ice cream made from human breast milk for health reasons/ooo its perfectly natural/reply (3)

Modern society seems to convince people that if something is natural it's good. I'm glad it hasn't convinced the government... yet.


text:
User talk:Skip106

-- 02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Skip106


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple Inc. releases iPad 2 tablet/White iPad/reply (3)

The white iPad 2 will be available immediately on March 11th, there won't be a wait like there was for the iPhone 4.


text:
User talk:Cyntiak

-- 02:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cyntiak


text:
User talk:Tuckerdellis

-- 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tuckerdellis


text:
User talk:Isra12912

-- 02:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Isra12912


text:
Thread:Comments:US Supreme Court upholds right to picket military funerals/Comments from feedback form - "This case dealt with intention..."

This case dealt with intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Snyders admitted that they never read the picket signs which were held quielty by members of the Wesboro Baptist Church 1000 feet away from the funeral, ON PUBLIC LAND, where local police told them to. No voices were ever raised and the funeral was not disrupted in any way. I hope that Americans will always have a right to hold up objectionable signs on public property. This is exactly what the First Amendment was intended to protect; objectionable speech. Don't read the signs if you do not want to be bothered by what the signs say.


text:
User talk:Lovelyvanna2

-- 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lovelyvanna2


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple Inc. releases iPad 2 tablet/White iPad/reply (4)

Believe it or not, the delay was caused by the inadvertent effect the white color had on the proximity sensor which the iPad doesn't have. Many of the parts used were also of inferior quality on the white iPhone.


text:
Thread:Comments:Apple Inc. unveils iPad 2 tablet/iPad 3/reply (2)

I think I will.


text:
User talk:Kybritney

-- 04:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kybritney


text:
User talk:Gonbrit

-- 04:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gonbrit


text:
User talk:Abdelrhmanmt1

-- 04:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abdelrhmanmt1


text:
User talk:Lauramparsons

-- 04:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lauramparsons


text:
User talk:Sbb122

-- 04:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sbb122


text:
User talk:Leytor

-- 05:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leytor


text:
User talk:Dbbradle

-- 05:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dbbradle


text:
User talk:Ian860130

-- 05:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ian860130


text:
User talk:Tdurden537paperst

-- 06:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tdurden537paperst


text:
Thread:Comments:US Supreme Court upholds right to picket military funerals/Comments from feedback form - "This case dealt with intention..."/reply

Much as I despise the Wesboro church and its members, I have to agree that it is important to uphold these freedoms. The more you ban real hate speech, the easier it is to twist otherwise offensive speech into "hate speech". Clear definitions just aren't enough here. Ignoring these people is the best solution, in the long run; censoring them turns them into martyrs and rebels.


text:
User talk:Teresa neetipudi

-- 06:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Teresa neetipudi


text:
User talk:Tilly101

-- 06:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tilly101


text:
User talk:Haris pup

-- 07:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Haris pup


text:
User talk:KUL DCOM

-- 07:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KUL DCOM


text:
User talk:Ratmangxa

-- 08:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ratmangxa


text:
User talk:Nz101

-- 08:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nz101


text:
User talk:Scykei

-- 08:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scykei


text:
User talk:Telco News

-- 09:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Telco News


text:
User talk:DANE RAMADAN YOUSSEF

-- 09:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DANE RAMADAN YOUSSEF


text:
Thread:Comments:Candle knocked over during voodoo sex ritual causes apartment fire/Comments from feedback form - "it's generally accepted that t..."

it's generally accepted that the use of candle at any where around the world lead to set blaze which is causing loses of many life so we have to be very careful in order to rescue our life from such victims


text:
User talk:Xfyre99

-- 09:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Xfyre99


text:
User talk:Dhaval31

-- 09:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dhaval31


text:
User talk:Nensi mehta

-- 10:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nensi mehta


text:
User talk:Starcrescent

-- 10:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Starcrescent


text:
User talk:Great khan 007

-- 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Great khan 007


text:
User talk:DavidCh0

-- 10:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DavidCh0


text:
User talk:Carmonaydelatorrearquitectos

-- 11:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Carmonaydelatorrearquitectos


text:
User talk:Nickynoodles85

-- 11:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nickynoodles85


text:
User talk:Kustom Europe

-- 11:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kustom Europe


text:
User talk:Lee Dimin

-- 11:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lee Dimin


text:
User talk:Sasmitrc

-- 11:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sasmitrc


text:
User talk:שושו 111

-- 12:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:שושו 111


text:
User talk:Evanh2008

-- 12:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Evanh2008