Hello, if you look at the talk page and read the last two edits you will see quite quickly the situation. I'd like a neutral 3rd party to mediate this. Coptic101 is a good faith editor, who was badly effected by the event the article is about. He or she is a highly valued Wikipedian in that he or she speaks both Arabic and English fluently. He or she also seems willing to work with the community to try to resolve conflicts. He or she is however new to wikipedia and still struggling to fit in, does not understand WP:COI, WP:RS, or WP:OWNERSHIP. Lihaas is more experienced and is trying to do some WP:NPOV work and some copy editing. Maybe Lihaas has been rude to Coptic101, I'll leave that up to you. Thank you much! Tim.thelion (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
WHAT? I have had NO WAR with coptic whatsoever, he reverted me i walked away from that page. the admin on the edit war page that i reported with an ip said it was NOT A war with the IP so i returned. You can see his talk page that MANY other editors warned his "npov"
you can also note, that coptic correspondence with me entailed "Please next time before making nonsense edits like this one" that is civil and IM being rude? Im ultimately baffled by this sulkign to the admins from an editor who also recommended it should be page protected when i posted on that page!
lets not forget that weve tried to explained to him the concepts to read and it doesnt matter to him. (a possible sock)
But of course now the admins will resort to a 1-sided block. (Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).
No where in this did I sugest you be blocked or say anything against you. Indeed, that's not what this page is for. At the top of the page it reads "Avoid filing a report if: You want blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures to be imposed/enforced." I just asked for a neutral 3rd party. Though I'm really not convinced you where polite when you posted this to my talk page. Tim.thelion (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Alexandria bombing
Please next time before making nonsense edits like this one [1], make sure you have consensus from the other editors to change the structure of the whole article like you did. --Coptic101 (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
WHAT? he has warnings and wars with numerous editos that you can see on his talk page, he probably socked- i DID NOT war with him and refrained from that page. on WHAT BASIS IS THERE A COMPLAINT ON THIS??(Lihaas (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).
I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply listed you as a party. Please stay calm. Everything will be allright. Your reputation isn't ruined forever. Tim.thelion (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
what is that if not an accusation? to go to the admins over waht? His response to me was an uncouth and uncivil accusation that i had "nonsense edits" with an IP that was warring with others and "im being uncivil" against etiquette? He has complaints and suggesting on bans from others and im in the wrong????(Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).
wikipedia seems to be going from bad to worse, a grand idea it may have been but since its rise in popularity its completely driven by politics and lobbyists with agendas. As if the Middle East is not bad enough now the irish republicans seems to be patrolling their petpages.
i think wikipedia's time has come. it did its duty, and did it well for a long time but now its better for more subject focused "pedias." Love to see how a "political" one comes along. Maybe starting a "Terrorpedia" could be a good idea.
; Lihaas 2
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
The IP editor is plainly Lihaas, given the edit to to the article and continuing the same discussion on the talk page, he is also participating in the same discussion as the account on Talk:Tapuah junction stabbing. Northern Cyprus presidential election, 2010 is another article common to both the IP and the account as well. I do not believe it should be necessary for me to file a WP:SPI first given they are plainly the same? Note that the "source" he has added is this, which only describes Rebublican Action Against Drugs as a "vigilante organisation" and does not use the word terrorism as required. This is the second time in a matter of days Lihaas has violated the sanction on this article, the report right above this one was his first violation. O Fenian (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
if one sees the discussion on the talk page for List of terrorist incidents, 2010#criteria for inclusions I have asked O Fenian for a debate where he refuses to debate the issue at hand but simply states : "This is not a list of bombings, so please do not add bombings..." + "If your only argument is that you intend to "ignore all rules" then this discussion is pointless" + "You either provide a source that describes the incident as terrorism, or it does not get added to the list." He then resorts to the tried and tested method of tag-team revertin with the user RepublicanJacobite from the the irish republican wikiproject (of which the two did the same on the RIRA/CIRA articles last year to remove the sources quotations from the IMC report of the time).
On another issue on the page I had an issue with the addition of the Tapuah Junction stabbing incident which another editor added because wikipedia calls for editors to be WP:Bold. I'm currently in the process of debating with another editor why i think it is wrong to add and why he thinks it is right, as the onus is on me to challenge the info was agreeably left on the page till consensus. Then another editor comes along and adds this edit in question about RAAD, the 2 republican members seem to so politically charged that they dont want to discuss the issue or the criteria for inclusion (in general as per the topic of the debate) and refuse to discuss this but simply state the onus turns on us again.
I have said it before in the debate that i agree there is stuff that shouldn't be on here but let's debate a criteria, yet they seem to think it is absolutely there preregotive to decide on an issue that suits them with scant regard for the talk facility. What is the point of a talk facility if political agendas have it there way without willingness to discuss? Even the hot-bed of the Middle East conflict is at least willing to discuss in the Jewish Exodus from Arab lands.
Im not saying im right, im just saying have a debate fairly before removing. Then get consensus. Wikipedia explicity asked an editor to be bold and they remove without discussing it with anyone. Might as well get rid of all these rules then. (of which, btw WP:Ignore also states that rules dont have to be followed by the book, meaning WP:WTA has repercussions.
Furthermore, another editor has also said how the list of terrorist incidents is unrelated to the troubles and that every act of terror/political violence in N. Ireland is not related to the troubles.Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
As for his latest "blatant lie" he has used the talk page as a forum rather than discussion. i have listed what he said and refused to discuss. Talk page doesnt mean using it for the sake of it, its to be used for discussion of content not threats.
as for "edit summary of vandalism -- watch what you delete" if you read the edit you will find the edit removed undisputed info apart from the controvesy. go on and see how the dates of another entry were reverted, mind you without any edit summary whatsoever. At any rate, pending the outcome of this case i have not gone back and reverted. But then there is the other precedence for being WP:Bold in reverting other controversial additions like that of the Tapuah junction. if one wants to read/follow the debate in this regard i have postedon the talk page without reverting. the onus now falls on O Fenian to debate.
He now seems to say, after i have given an arguement with basis, that he doesnt want to debate because he seems to have changed his mind "This is becoming little more than trolling now. Unless reliable sources describe this incident as terrorism, or the perpetrators as terrorists, Wikipedia will not be doing so." Now i would like to ask an admin. Why should i have to keep justifying myself if he refuses to talk and debate?
There seems to be a new red herring to avoid debate. "finding it difficult to believe that straight after a block for a 1RR breach, an editor can breach 1RR again on the same article using a sockpuppet, continue edit warring after that" firstly, 2 editors vs. one finds this article is not related to the troubles so there is a 3rr rule. Secondly, i have ceased to remove his edit awaiting the setting of precedent. Thirdly, there is no "sockpuppet," which he seems to believe is the only reason to argue about.
Sockpuppet case
Why would i possible want to log out and log back in just to edit this? That to somethign that is blatantly similiar? If i was a sock puppet woudlnt i at least try to be different? My account seems to often log out on some comps im on b/c its a public facility or has low cache memory. i dont know what the reason is.Lihaas (talk) 09:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
previous block
on what basis was this? on the whim of 1 person? No others, no other admins. Is this a politically driven wikipedia that 1 person can make demands have it passed? Simply because he asserts a relation with the troubles doesnt make it true? Mr. O Fenian is not a historian by an qualification not a policy maker nor a wikipedia admin/rule maker. as above, 2 editors on the issue have shown this to be otherwise. Why is there no apology for the block? And as shown above the second "revert" adds another source to work through consensus, yet for some reason wikipedia seems to believe that only those who update regularly have the authority to make demands on others.Lihaas (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Lihaas, the block was on the basis of this remedy, which clearly states that editors who exceed 1RR "may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator". The remedy has the scope of "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland", and I consider the Republican organization is related to Irish nationalism. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
You said "any article that could be reasonably construed..." yet i didnt edit RAAD (even if it were to construed as a time of the troubles (as per the above not everything in the country has to do with the troubles), even though the topic on hand concerns actions in 2010). The article in questions is List of terrorist incidents, 2010. Seeing that page there are only a few facets that even consider ireland as a whole.
Furthermore, the RAAD page itself was created only lastmonth in response to action this year, long after the troubles were done with. Yes the remedy ties me up to the troubles which i havent even touched in a year
You can also see the tag-team revert editors supporting each other (the only this RepublicanJacobite seems to want to discuss. very likely to be a case of sockpuppetry)Talk:List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2010#Arbitrary_break
And i do all the admins actually read the content before replying? (See tim songs update below after i posted)
also, and more importantly, the block came from a "revert" that included lots of info. not just his that was another "revert" in less than 24 hours. see the previous info above. Didnt the admin who did the block actually read the info? Lihaas (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by others about the request concerning Lihaas
Comment I think invoking AE is an unnecessary escalation of what has been a fairly slow-burn, civil discussion, albeit mostly carried out by edit summary, the more unfortunately. Firstly, I don't think this is a Troubles related incident, simply a vanilla question of whether a violent act by a vigilante group can be construed as terrorism. Not all terrorism in Ireland is by definition part of the Troubles. Secondly, the second "revert" diff linked by O Fenian above represents what appears to be a good faith effort to make a real substantive change to meet O Fenian et al's concerns by adding a new source on the issue. I oppose any blocks at this time as unduly chilling on the necessary give-and-take we're having on this list and related articles. (please see also my comments at the SPI case). RayTalk 18:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering Lihaas is once again adding the incident which is unsourced as terrorism with an edit summary of vandalism -- watch what you delete I would request that a sanction (or sanctions) of some description is/are issued. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Further accusation of vandalism, and also a blatant lie that "Time and time again you have refused to use the talk facility", when I have posted on the talk page repeatedly. A block at this stage would not be punitive, it would prevent him edit-warring to add back the incident which is unsourced as terrorism, since he shows no sign of stopping. O Fenian (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I am finding it difficult to believe that straight after a block for a 1RR breach, an editor can breach 1RR again on the same article using a sockpuppet, continue edit warring after that, make accusations of vandalism, and that nothing is going to happen about this? When will it end? O Fenian (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
To repeat myself, I don't think this falls under the arbitration case for the Troubles; Lihaas' problem here has nothing to do with Irish nationalism, and I've yet to see a serious argument that this incident springs from that. In which case what we have is a fairly frustrating and annoying content dispute, where I do think Lihaas is being a little bit unreasonable, but unreasonableness is not yet a reason for banning. RayTalk 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment From my uninvolved view with this current issue. I have dealt with O Fenian before and I noticed from his comment of complaining about accusations of vandalism, this reminds me of a certain accusation here where he falsely accused me of vandalism while I attempted to fix an infobox which I was only able to do poorly due to template problems. Hypocrisy? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
As anyone can see, that (which is not caused by any since-deleted templates) is a joke, and that any editor knowingly saw fit to leave an infobox in that state and not self-revert their edit is vandalism in my opinion. O Fenian (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to remove a flag that does not represent the whole of Ireland and due to there being no template to have it say "Ireland" without a flag, that was all I could do with the templates avaliable which is not vandalism. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Could I suggest you discontinue this thread? PhilKnight (talk) 18:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The point I was making is that O Fenian's motives may be questionable with the source I gave that suggests there may be some hypocrisy which makes one of his explainations suspicious. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Result concerning Lihaas
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.
As the IP user was not evading a block, it would seem to me that the appropriate venue for this request is WP:SPI, where you can raise a type A checkuser request. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
User:O Fenian has asked me to review this decision as he feels it is obvious that the user is Lihaas. I do not believe further action is appropriate here but am leaving the request open for other admins if they think differently. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The IP edits the same articles, at similar times, but never at the same time, so it certainly could be a sock. Given that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lihaas has already been filed, I'll wait for the result. PhilKnight (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've declined the CU request, as it is definitely the same user. Someone here should figure out if any sanction is necessary. Tim Song (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
SPI has kicked it back to us. I am inclined to closed this with no action per Ray above, as blocks are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. Stifle (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Question: Have all those accounts which violated an arbitration decision been blocked? If any remain free to edit, I disagree that they should go unsanctioned. Of course, if all accounts associated with this request have been blocked for sockpuppetry by the folks at SPI then applying a sanction would be needless. AGK 16:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi AGK, my understanding is there was an infringement, but Lihaas hasn't been blocked. I agree a short block could be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. Any block should be accompanied with a notice that further violations will result in an extended block and/or a ban from the topic area. This sort of problem editor can quickly escalate from being a small pain in the rear to being a major obstacle to collaboration and discussion. I do, however, hesitate at blocking now for the two reverts because of the time that has elapsed since the incident. On the other hand, a block may a good idea in light of the sock puppetry. AGK 23:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Should we be kicking Lihaas out of this subject area permanently, in light of the sock puppetry? People who use alternative accounts to avoid scrutiny and push through their POV aren't the kind of people we need floating around contested, ex-arbitration subject areas. AGK 23:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
My feeling, as above, is that blocks are meant to be preventative rather than punitive and it would do no good to block him at this stage. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
What about a restriction that he may only edit while logged in? Any future failure to log in that is not immediately corrected will result in a block. Tim Song (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Stifle: Blocks are meant to be immediately preventative, yes, but I'm talking about sanctioning him. The preventative element of a sanction needs to be considered on a more long-term basis—so even if he isn't currently a "threat", it may be the case that his presence in this subject area is detrimental. Tim Song: I don't think that's necessary. We usually deal with sock puppets by slamming an indef on the puppet/s and a lengthy block or indef on the master. I'm also not seeing any remedy in the The Troubles case that would allow us to levy such a sanction even if we wanted to. Maybe a community one-account restriction could be agreed to at AN/I, but again—I don't agree that it's necessary. AGK 21:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
strong oppose The election result already went up, we cant post it everytime something happens. At any rate, in other cases we havent put up govt. formation if the election results were out.(Lihaas (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC));
The formation of the government is far more significant than the (in this case ambiguous) election result. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And your appeal to "other cases" just isn't true.[66] --Mkativerata (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
per Holland, and it shouldnt have been for the uk either in that case Lihaas (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
So the actual outcome in terms of who wins government is less important than the academic question of who wins the most seats? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggested it should wait till this stage, nonetheless others thought otherwise. But i think its silly (and hypocritical) to relist it.
at the very least the bolded part should be different than the SAME article getting on again. Lihaas (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
They are a major English speaking country and have had a hung parliament, so Support the inclusion of both in WP:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Support: Per Mkativerata and Eraserhead1. COI admission, I am an Australian! 220.101talk\Contribs 06:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Support, per Mkativerata and Eraserhead1. This is the final outcome of the election. Nightw 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Support There is precedent. We did the exact same for the UK election. The only difference here, is that it's taken longer to get a final result. --116.240.224.177 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Support, per Mkativerata and Eraserhead1.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support — I only came here because I was surprised that it wasn't up already. There is a precedent with the UK election and, to be honest, if this were anything to do with US politics there is no doubt that this would be already up. Jenks24 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:*The update isn't great, but it is there. PostingCourcelles 15:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:**If the update we're talking about is the one located at the lead, that's one pretty crappy uncited update. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:***I was thinking of Gillard's article, actually, not the election's. Courcelles 15:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
:****Ah, the cop-out way, I see. I guess there's nothing wrong with that... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an explosive upsurge of condemnations of this event by global leaders: the Vatican, Ban Ki-moon, Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel in the last 24 hours alone. With three more days until the book burning is to take place I can only see this story moving in one direction. __meco (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Only if something massive happens in retaliation, which I doubt. This is so much of a non-issue that I'm really disappointed that world leaders have given it so much attention. If they hadn't said jack, no one would care. --Golbez (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
*sigh* Again we have an editor who opines on what should be featured based on how the world ought to react to a would-be non-event simply blocking out the fact that the world is rising up in uproar. This is becoming a trend. This is no way to administer In The News... __meco (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your statement here is; "to a would-be non-event"? Yes, it's a non-event unless an event happens. The burning of a book is not typically an event. A bombing in retaliation is an event, but people opining about a non-event is, in itself, a non-event. --Golbez (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Put another way, the story some tim ago was not the cartoons of Muhammad - it was the violent reaction to them. It is premature to consider putting this up unless there's an actual reaction to it. Burning a commonly available item is not really ITN worthy, no matter how many news sources and famous people pipe up about it. --Golbez (talk) 21:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I don't really see why these far right nutters burning the Koran deserve the publicity. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per Eraserhead1. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose and article should be nuked as well. Since when did the actions of a bunch of bigots in Florida become an "International Burna a Koan Day"? The idea is almost as pathetic as the act itself. Physchim62(talk) 22:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose and follow Physchim62's advice. WP:DFTT. The same applies with these lunatics.--WaltCip (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Please, I wish people would stop trying to apply WP behavior guidelines such as BEANS, DFTT, DENY, etc. to the subjects of our articles. Real world notability is real world notability. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
You're misreading the comments; I, for one, am saying this is simply not notable at the moment (and hopefully never will be). Physchim62(talk) 02:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Just because some highly paid people of apparent importance have work schedules so light that they can take the time to speak out against such a non-event as this doesn't mean said non-event is notable. --Golbez (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose for now. if however any violent retaliation occurs I could be persuaded to change my mind. No matter how crazy this event is a violent reaction would be unacceptable behavior IMO.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Wait for a notable response...probably a few KFCs will be burned down or something, but only if there's major retaliation. SpencerT♦C 00:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale is convincing; opposition based on desire to deny publicity is less so. The amount of attention this is getting worldwide is undeniable. However I feel it does not belong on ITN until after it has occurred and we see how people have reacted. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Event is obviously "a story of international importance or interest" [67]. However, the blurb will look pretty boring at the moment, "...world leaders condemn FL church's plan to burn a Quran...", so I say Wait till the actual event, after which it will definitely be notable (even if, say, the event is cancelled). SPattalk 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Cancellation of the event would not be notable in the slightest. "Preacher says he won't burn Qu'ran on Saturday" is not really encyclopedic material. I can see scenarios where the event could become notable, but they haven't happened yet (and, as they would almost inevitably result in significant loss of human life, I hope they don't). Physchim62(talk) 02:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
oppose this making on ITN would only have shock value to it. not much encyclopedic value. all these made up days like lets draw muhamad or lets burn qu'ran are quite stupid and really should not be featured on Main page unless someone like Obama personally does it himself on TV. which causes international panic or smth -- Ashish-g55 02:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, for reasons already stated by others. Nightw 07:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
What the hell? This is a huge story in the international press. The coverage is unjustified for this little man but we can not decide what is and is not a major international story, to ignore it in order to avoid controversy is censorship. This has been responded to by senior politicians, religious figures, senior military, countries are seeking to block coverage of it. It is incredible people are trying to suggest this should not be mentioned on the main page. The media has been banging on about it for the past 24 hours. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
*Responded to. Seeking to. Words. Nothing more. Get back to me when there's an actual action; violence, certainly, or maybe even some Elian-esque raid to stop the eeevil church from doing something that isn't illegal (apart from the fine for having a fire in their county). --Golbez (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Support - this is an incredibly notable international event (i agree that it shouldnt be, But it is). Of course it should be added to ITN. Although it should only be added once the silly deletion attempt of the article has failed. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
*People condemn an awful lot of stupid plans, which doesn't always make those plans significant; indeed, there's no end of cases of plans so trivial they didn't even exist being publicly condemned at great length for a couple of days! I don't see much reason to give this more publicity; it's one person being a dick by making a small but puerile gesture, and hoping people jump in response. Shimgray | talk | 12:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
*If you have updated yourself on the international news coverage of this issue you will also have ascertained that the whole world is indeed jumping. That is notable. Then it matters less why they are jumping. __meco (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
**No, it means a lot of highly paid people are overpaid and underworked. You haven't even proposed a blurb; "Many people say that a group of people shouldn't damage its property"? --Golbez (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
*Now you are just talking garbage. So now the lack of a proposed nlurb is also an argument against this story reaching ITN? Have you no filters between what enters you mind and what comes out? __meco (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
*Well that's twice you've insulted me, to zero times me insulting you, but whatever makes you feel better about nominating this. And no, a blurb is not required to get it put up - but it helps. No, the argument against it reaching ITN is that it's a non-event, and that I choose not to publish it. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Please dont use bullets and tabs. it looks odd -- Ashish-g55 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
strong oppose The election result already went up, we cant post it everytime something happens. At any rate, in other cases we havent put up govt. formation if the election results were out.(Lihaas (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC));
The formation of the government is far more significant than the (in this case ambiguous) election result. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
And your appeal to "other cases" just isn't true.[68] --Mkativerata (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
per Holland, and it shouldnt have been for the uk either in that case Lihaas (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
So the actual outcome in terms of who wins government is less important than the academic question of who wins the most seats? --Mkativerata (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggested it should wait till this stage, nonetheless others thought otherwise. But i think its silly (and hypocritical) to relist it.
at the very least the bolded part should be different than the SAME article getting on again. Lihaas (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Wow "hypocritical" is a bold call. Who is the hypocrite and why? Please tell. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to make sure that things are still on an even keel, Lihaas is not accusing anyone of being a hypocrite, but is instead bringing attention towards what may be a hypocritical act (e.g. ad actum vs. ad hominem).--WaltCip (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
They are a major English speaking country and have had a hung parliament, so Support the inclusion of both in WP:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Support: Per Mkativerata and Eraserhead1. COI admission, I am an Australian! 220.101talk\Contribs 06:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Support, per Mkativerata and Eraserhead1. This is the final outcome of the election. Nightw 08:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Support There is precedent. We did the exact same for the UK election. The only difference here, is that it's taken longer to get a final result. --116.240.224.177 (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Support, per Mkativerata and Eraserhead1.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support — I only came here because I was surprised that it wasn't up already. There is a precedent with the UK election and, to be honest, if this were anything to do with US politics there is no doubt that this would be already up. Jenks24 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
*****Actually the "update" has been on the page (not the leded) pretty much from the moment it happened. It's just in a sensible place and not overdone with recentism. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
====Bomb threat at Tour Eiffel====
Police forces evacuated the Eiffel Tower and the park surrounding the Paris landmark Tuesday after a bomb alert. [69][70]. Seems to be a reaction of today's ban of veils. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
WHAT A RACIST COMMENT? WHO CLAIMED IT? THE FLNCFLB??????????????????(Lihaas (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC));
Support but only if it blows up oppose otherwise BB7 (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It's under investigation for possible money laundering by Italian authorities. There's an update here but more is needed. Also note that €23m (about $30.5m/£19.5m) has already been seized. Not the first time the bank has been caught in a scandal. ~DCWe Can Work It Out 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Support; I think the high profile of the bank and the fact that it's already had consequences--namely, the siezing of money--make it valid to go up. Also expanded the update. C628 (talk) 01:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Support per nom. the timer is pretty red.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment: the update looks good to me. Need a blurb, though. TFOWR 01:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
How about "Italian police announce that two officials from the Vatican Bank are being investigated and €23 million euros have been siezed as part of an inquiry into claims of money-laundering." Might be a bit wordy, and I'm not thrilled with the word "inquiry," but I wanted to avoid using "investigation" twice... C628 (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
How about "Italian authorities seize €23 million in assets from the Vatican Bank amidst an investigation of alleged money laundering." It way it seems ready to post, and there is a consensus to do so. ~DCWe Can Work It Out 03:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
:Oppose This is only an investigation, no charges have been made, so there must be a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. --Stephen 02:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That's not an ITN criteria. And the seizing of 23m EUR is notable. ~DCWe Can Work It Out 03:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Posted as there is consensus and an updated article. No presumption of innocence is being offended here - we, as is the news, are reporting action taken by police in respect of alleged activities.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have to step away for a bit. I'll deliver the credits in a few hours, unless anyone (doesn't have to be an admin or even an uninvolved editor) wants to do it in the meantime. It seems: nomination credit to DC, update credit to C628.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks heaps - I'm back now (earlier than I thought) so yours has been delivered too. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
===Sweden (ii)===
What the heck is "balance of power"? is it synthesis by wikipedia editors? there is no source that says this? The page itself is NOT yet updated with the results/table? Do people check the page before ITN discussions?
In addition to this not being ready for the main page yet. It is also not locked, as seen by the blatant vandalism already intiated,(Lihaas (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC));
DoneWell, ive partially updated with results, but it needs a swedish speaker to finish the update and is duly tagged (dont know why someone from ITN couldnt do it before adding it. Would have been logical)Lihaas (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Done? It still says "the Sweden Democrats hold the balance of power", which is a a meaningless statement. ANY party not in the Alliance could supply the 3 mandates they are missing.--Nø (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that the Swedish Democrats are a nationalist party. Their name suggests otherwise. Eiad77 (talk) 08:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
umm, im not an admin, its done to what i said now to some other response, just replied accordingly to differ my statement from the other.Lihaas (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer removing them completely and leaving the blurb saying who got the plurality (and maybe that it's not a majority). --Tone 09:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the name "Sweden Democrats" is so vague and misleading a descriptor is needed. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
If it's necessary to mention the Sweden Democrats, they should at least be described in a manner that there is some consensus over. They are perceived as being far-right by many in Sweden and the relatively benign term 'nationalist' glosses over this, as well as obscuring the fact that many active in the party are formerly active neo-Nazis. Is wikipedia just going to go along with this party's attempts to airbrush these things out?90.233.176.63 (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the term "nationalist" has a negative connotation when it describes political parties.Eiad77 (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It does seem to be the term used in the article itself; I'm not sure we should be second-guessing that, and we don't have the space to give a detailed summary of their positions. Shimgray | talk | 18:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I did a review of sources (not just the ones in the article) and "nationalist" appears to be widely used. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes the term 'nationalist' has come to be widely used about the Sweden Democrats but that is mainly a testament to how successfully the party has succeeded in re-branding itself over the last decade. It's true that it has a negative connotation, but what I think this creates the impression they are something akin to Sinn Fein in Ireland or the EAJ in the Basque country or something, when in fact they belong in a category with the Front National in France, Vlaams Belang in Belgium or the Freedom Party in Austria (if they still exist) in that they are mainly concerned with anti-immigrantion politics and not really nationalism. Anyway, never mind it seems to have reached consensus but still it's a shame —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.233.134.29 (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, unless I'm explicitly in a context where I expect to be discussing someone like the Scottish Nationalists (a lefty independence-oriented party), I read "nationalist" and presume "scary right-wing person". I think we may just be differing here on the implications we attach to the word! Shimgray | talk | 00:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Besides how to describe this party, it is still a problem that they are said to "hold the balance of power". Similar wording is in fact used by some media, but it means absolutely nothing. The issue is that the Alliance probably will need a few votes from someone else to have an absolute majority, and Sverigesdemokraterne is just one possibility, and in fact the least realistic one - as Alliancen explicitly and repeatedly rules it out. Theoretically, if all the other parties choose to ally themselves with Sverigesdemokraterne against Alliancen, they would have a majority, and in that sense Svreigesdemokraterne hold the balance, i.e., thay can choose between a government involving the social democrats or one involving Moderaterna (Alliancen) - but this is a wildly unrealistc speculation as neither side wants to work with them. Here is a proposed wording of the item:
In the Swedish general election, the centre-right Alliance wins a plurality but not an absolute majority. The nationalist Sweden Democrats for the first time wins a basis in the Swedish parliament.--Nø (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Parts of this seems best. "In the Swedish general election, the centre-right Alliance wins a plurality. The nationalist Sweden Democrats for the first time wins seats in the Swedish parliament." no need to say "no a majority" its implied. I dont any cover is needed for the SD to feature at all, but then historic fact should be mentioned (although with other elections we dont add which party made a first), and i dont think we mentioned the Lib-Dems as holding the balance of power during the brit elections.Lihaas (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see any need for changes in the mainpage summary. The current situation is that Sweden has to be ruled by a minority government or form a majority that includes SD. Describing their position as one sitting on the balance of power seems like a very accurate description of the situation and the most common one as of now. Whether they actually get into government or not is a matter of speculation and won't be decided for quite some time.
A main page link to a page that is locked and hence out-of-date? i see its unlocked.
Furthermore, Jobbik's first entrance to parliament didnt go up on ITN Lihaas (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It really should be changed back to nationalist.Eiad77 (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
This is rather old but I thought I should point out Peter's claim doesn't seem to be true since it's possible even if unlikely that the two coalitions could form a grand coalition and a majority government OR (again perhaps unlikely although from what I've read not impossible) that there could be a majority government involving various members of the current coalitions (I don't know what the coalition agreements are but I would presume it possible with the consensus of all involved) Nil Einne (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Claims of foiled terrorist plots just don't seem like ITN material to me. We usually require something to have happened (and drone attacks in Pakistan are hardly news these days). Plus my anarchistic tendency makes me feel that this is just so much propaganda for the European security agencies, who make their money by scaring people about "terror plots". Physchim62(talk) 01:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Comment well there has been an unprecedented increase in drone strikes and September has seen most strikes ever since the attacks started in 2004. I think we now have an answer why. we regularly post terrorist attacks which are successful. Why not give some credit to agencies who work hard to keep us safe but only get noticed when they fail. If it is propaganda why now ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The former president of the Canary Islands seems to be dead. --candle•wicke 08:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - not important political figure, and he was not in office. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 08:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as per above and also the Canaries are not an independent state.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose sub national entity, no broad interest outside the archipelago. Modest Geniustalk 13:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as above. This isn't even getting much coverage even in mainland Spain. Physchim62(talk) 15:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems odd concerning the ex-premier of Lithuania went up.
===Liu Xiaobo===
*Someone else mentioned this at ITNC, but adding "imprisoned" to the blurb would make sense. You could probably even link it to political prisoner. ~DCWe Can Work It Out 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. I don't think linking is necessary... --BorgQueen (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Its rather POV to state that. He wasnt given the aard because hes imprisoned, that is the whim of wikipedia editors. At any rate, when they get to the page the viewer can see that.(Lihaas (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC));
Why is it POV? He is, after all, and therefore can't formally receive the award. It's the same scenario as it was with Aung San Suu Kyi. Rennell435 (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't think it's POV. He is imprisoned and his imprisonment is relevant in this context. It would be POV to say "wrongly imprisoned", but not to simply state a fact. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
She appears at WP:LILP. Extensive worldwide news coverage already Google news/ BBC. Short paragraph about her death added to article. BencherliteTalk 15:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Per her inclusion at WP:LILP and she was a legend who had a big impact on the opera world. - JuneGloom07Talk? 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Absolute support. Not an Opera lover but certainly know who she was. Signifcant figures in the arts. - 220.101talk\Contribs 19:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Only notable for Australians. Here in the UK we haven't heard any news on her at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genjix (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose she was 83; the article says She had been in poor health since a fall. Nothing surprising, and we've had much bigger names who died without getting on the ITN. Nergaal (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Support front page at Yahoo. Top stories in BBC, etc. Secretaccount 19:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Notable people dying is why we have recent deaths. Her death isn't significant, despite the coverage it has received. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
We had Norman Wisdom death on the front page, and his death didn't bring Yahoo front page attention. Secretaccount 20:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Strong support. Her death is getting widespread international attention, and we have a good biography of her. Physchim62(talk) 20:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The article is excellent, and she certainly seems to meet the death criteria for ITN (leader in her field of expertise).--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Everyone with an article is notable, and I agree we shouldn't post every notable person's death. But this transcends that: she was a leader in her field, an international icon. I'd expect Kiri Te Kanawa's death to be posted; this is no different. TFOWR 20:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
*Anyone care to expand (and possibly rewrite) the information on here death? The rest of the article looks like it could do with tidying up, but the two sentences about her death read much like a news release. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I've had a go. Does it need a bit more? - JuneGloom07Talk? 20:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Seems to be highly influential woman in Opera. Just because her death is not shocking does not mean we should not put her here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
*Posted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
**Strong Support Look at what Pavarotti said about her etc. And they said this when she was in fine form, so it wasn't just puffery as part of the condolence. per TFOWR, Johnsemlak, physchim YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
====Man Booker Prize====
The winner of the 2010 Man Booker Prize is expected to be announced at about 20:45 UTC tonight. Prestigious award and not a subject we have a lot of on ITN. In fact, it's one of only three literary prizes listed on ITN/R. (BBC)HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
... What's the point of the nomination if it's on ITN/R? :P f o x 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Because everything is nominated here. That's what it says at ITN/R and WP:ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Yarly. Quoth ITNR: 'the relevant article(s) will still have to be updated appropriately and proposed on the candidates page before being posted.' Modest Geniustalk 22:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
MotoGP champion is also listed there and hasn't been updated yet. Nergaal (talk) 19:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Will you drop the bloody stick and leave that horse the hell alone? I've done everything I possibly can for that nomination and simply because it's on ITN/R doesn't mean it magically goes up. There was no consensus last time I looked as to whether to post it now or at the end of the tournament. If you're that bothered about it, go to the talk page and try to drum up some interest like I did. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
*And the winner is Howard Jacobson's The Finkler Question. I Support this btw, per the nom. It isn't a subject we have a lot of on ITN. - JuneGloom07Talk? 20:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Posting. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
====[[Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America]]====
A federal judge has enjoined the Pentagon from kicking gay people out of the military. Although the final word on this matter is probably years away, this is the first time uncloseted gay people can serve in the U.S. military. This is currently the top non-Chilean-miner story in the U.S. media and throws another wrinkle into the upcoming elections. It should go without saying that a lot of readers are interested in this. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Neutral As much as I would like to post it I am leery about until it gets to the Sumpreme court The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
That might be years from now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Support A civil court granting an injunction against enforcing government policy seems a fairly rare thing to me, and the issue in hand is very widely reported around the world. Physchim62(talk) 01:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. I don't know what will happen down the road; however, I think the nominal significance of overturning don't ask don't tell is worth recognizing. The article could use more than a one sentence update though. Dragons flight (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Support per Physchim. And sure, it may get to the Supreme Court, but an appeal by the Justice Department isn't guaranteed. And any potential SCOTUS case would be years from now. ~DCWe Can Work It Out 01:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
====Kyrgyzstani parliamentary election, 2010====
The first election since the constitutional referendum ad the uprising that overthrew the leadership (forcing the prez into exile in belarus) was won by a party that threatened to roll-back the the referendum and bring him back.Lihaas (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Already in.Lihaas (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I can't read the results site to verify reliability. Grsz11 03:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
[71] workign for me, its the official results. (iits not english lang. though).Lihaas (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Wait! It's certainly a notable development, but perhaps it'd be better to wait until they actually vote Bakiyev back in to power. Otunbaeva is still overseeing the government until the Prime Ministry is restored. So instead of posting these results and then posting the election of the PM, I think it's better to just post the latter. Nightw 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Futile Oppose. There's obviously no point, given the bizarre outcome of the recent poll on the talk page, but meh. It simply cannot be logically possible that Wikipedia considers the routine politics of a country like Kyrgyzstan is more worthy of notice to the front page readership than for example the first experimental observation of Hawking radiation, or any other item that just dissappears off this page for lack of affirmative action or even interest, whereas this election ticker stuff is given the red carpet treatment. I bet most readers have never even heard of Kyrgyzstan, let alone pick it out on a map, and anyone who have or could, will certainly know who Stephen Hawking is. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that we were supposed to cater to the lowest common denominator. --Golbez (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
We aren't. Unless you think talking about Hawking radiation is an example of 'catering to the lowest common denominator.' MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's what confused me. We can expect people to figure out what that is, but geography is apparently more difficult? I would wager more people have heard of Kyrgyzstan than of Hawking radiation. You just said we shouldn't include Kyrgyzstan because 'most people can't even pick it out on the map', but if I went outside right now and asked everyone I saw what they thought of Hawking radiation, they would not know what I was talking about. Same could apply to Kyrgyzstan. Which is why we don't do things here based on the Jaywalking test, we do them based on other factors. So my main complaint was your assertion that, because many people won't know what Kyrgyzstan is, based on that alone we shouldn't post it, when that ran counter to your example of Hawking radiation. You say it cannot be logically possible, I question your logic. --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
(And note that I'm not supporting this, while I would have supported Hawking radiation; however, I took issue with your statement) --Golbez (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
My point is more accurately put as: Who has heard of Stephen Hawking/Kyrgyzstan, and who can place Kyrgyzstan on a map/tell you what Hawking radiation is. Two different levels, but both demonstrate the relative differences. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per MM. Considering that now we stopped posting the champion in MotoGP I have no idea why Kyrghistan should be up there. Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Wow, is that what the world has come to? Some guy riding a motorcycle is more important than a national election? Besides which, nobody has said we're not posting the MotoGP winner, so don't imply otherwise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Support pending a full update. The article looks good so far, and the election resulted in a change of government, hardly 'routine politics'. And Kyrgyzstan is a decent sized country, it's not like this is San Marino.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Changes of government through elections is very much an example of routine politics, assuming even that the electoral organisation in this former Soviet republic is not corrupt/incompetent. Changes in government through revolution is non-routine politics. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose I struck down my oppose and changed it to this. Kyrgyzstan is not a notable country by any measure: 5mil population means is outside top 100; location: Asian steppe; resources: gas only. As for motorcycling, I am going to assume that since I am the only vote yet, that one will probably not get posted before it will get bumped off due to the age of the news. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Support its getting alot of Foreign press thus notable. We do to little stories in that corner of the worldThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
No need for support, on ITNR. Article looks in good shape. There's really no reason not to post this. Modest Geniustalk 22:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Support it's not a city state and central Asia is under-represented in the world's media. Hawking radiation should have been posted too and I'd be OK if this election wasn't on ITN/R. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Support; I don't really see how whether we posted some other articles should influence the decision on this one. (For what it's worth, I'd prefer we had posted Hawking radiation, too.) —Nightstallion 08:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I'd like to point out that editors slapping random "strongest possible oppose" votes when they unadmittedly don't know anything about this item, and bringing up entirely unrelated items (i.e., Motor racing, Stephen Hawking) to cite as precedents for why this one should not be posted, is unproductive and incredibly juvenile. Get over it.
For the uneducated, this is a remarkable election from a state that has been without a constitutional government for 6 months since a coup d'état that we posted on ITN. That coup has been overturned by a democratic vote—that's not "routine politics" by any definition.
Regardless of any of that, the story is receiving wide international coverage and elections are on WP:ITN/R. So opposing is meaningless, unless there are any special considerations to take into account. In this case, as I said above, what should be considered is whether to post it now, or when a Prime Minister is re-elected. Until then, the interim government is still in power. Nightw 09:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
You do know what the word 'futile' means right? I mean, I may or may not be 'uneducated', but I'm pretty sure I know my words and stuff. It's a protest vote, 'get over it'. MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
My comment was not directed at you alone. But your "protest vote" was made with obviously no prior knowledge of the item in question—as you blindly argued that this was "routine politics"—and was therefore ill-placed. Nightw 14:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I was aware of it, not least because it is in the nominator's rationale. But the fact of the matter is, we already posted the coup, and this blurb is still a routine election posting, coup or no coup, which is why everybody is invoking ITN/R. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
at least two of the above supports (as well as the one below) don't invoke ITN/R (and in my case I reject ITN/R for this item.) -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The article seems ready and there's plenty of support, plus its ITNR. I'd like that there are significant international repercussions here. Kyrgyzstan hosts a NATO base for operations in Afghanistan. A change of government in Kyrgyzstan will certainly have a bearing on that base's future. --Johnsemlak (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
====Ahmaedenijad visit to Lebanon====
Amidst the global imbroglio concerning Iran, Mahmoud Ahmedenijad, who is no stranger to cotnroversy, visits Lebanon. botht he united States and israel have reacted adversely to the visit, as well as some sections of Lebanon with others responding very positively (both christian and muslims). Its a 2 days visit and he lands in the next few hours. Lebanon has been filled with controversy and doubts of stability recently which also add to the importance of this. It is not "just another bilateral visit" akin to clinton in bosnia or somethign of the sort. This also follows the 2010 Adaisseh incident. (blurb in the section above)
just landed(Lihaas (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC));
Absolutely an important event. Do we have an article? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Weak support. I don't usually like this sort of foreign relations story, as I find visits between countries very routine. However, this particular visit is getting quite a bit of media attention around the world, so that would make makes it ITN-worthy for me if the background material and updated article are there. Physchim62(talk) 14:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose, since this seems fairly run-of-the-mill, standard diplomatic condemnations. Modest Geniustalk 21:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
===Ahmaedenijad wraps up visit to Lebanon===
per the statement below which also had 2 supports vs. 1 oppose (excl. nom). Certainly notable, controversial, and newsworth in int'l coverage, particularly under the circumstances(Lihaas (talk) 07:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC));
Support I heard about it on the radio last night, so it is getting international coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose very antagonistic move, but not an international incident or any other significance. Routine head of State to neighboring country and ally.There is some heat in the oven but the kitchen is not on fire The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose the visit itself was very routine and didn't lead to anything groundbreaking. No more important than a state visit by Obama, which I doubt would make it on ITN. --PlasmaTwa2 18:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per the two above me. It was just a state visit. Nothing came of it and Ahmaedenijad's sabre-rattling is nothing new. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
The pope's visit to the UK went up, and that was far less controversial than this one.
And its not "routine" its a first like the Pope's with far more controversy in the circumstances of this year, exspecially. )see the first nom. below.(Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC));
Support, the Pope was posted after all. There is lots of coverage in the international media. TIME seems to consider it an important event. Iranian media even uses the word "notable". --candle•wicke 11:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
BBC - "Ahmadinejad's visit raises sectarian tension in Lebanon". That's from today. The trip is still being discussed. --candle•wicke 14:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose as per my reasoning on the previous nom (why has this been renominated?). Coming this to the pope is disingenuous. Modest Geniustalk 15:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Why? Its far more notable, and more controversial, and like the pope's a first.Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
YET:
====Benoît Mandelbrot====
has died, aged 85. One of the very few pure mathematicians to be known to wider public, as the (step-)father of fractals and the famous Mandelbrot set. Physchim62(talk) 20:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sure he was very notable but his death at 85 isn't significant. Nothing against this nom specifically, that's just what I say for almost all old-age deaths suggested here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Significant mathematician and populariser of mathematics. I don't really like the current one-sentence Death section - it should either be incorporated into the other prose or expanded. Modest Geniustalk 20:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I expanded the section with some reaction to his death, should be OK now. Modest Geniustalk 20:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Weak support. A death at the age of 85 from pancreatic cancer is not really unexpected, but this gentleman was significant in a field that is under-represented on ITN and the articles is in decent shape though, as MG says, the death section will need some work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Support He did groundbreaking work with fractals and is very well known, I think. But the article's death section itself needs some more work. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
(Forgot I was editing double edit conflict) Support as a very significant, groundbreaking mathematician. Ks0stm(T•C•G) 20:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Support we have so many actors popping out at ITN and very few scientists (outside Nobels). Nergaal (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. An iconic individual whose influence reached far beyond mathematics. The death section has been expanded since. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
*Seems notable enough as she's the first Australian saint. Also interesting in that she had been excommunicated by the Church but later reinstated, maybe that could be included in the blurb if necessary. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 08:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Significantly updated, first for Australia, of interest internationally. I'm agnostic, but isn't this a great ITN for a Sunday? :-) TFOWR 09:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Support--the first ever Australian saint seems pretty significant.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Support good item. MickMacNee (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
support canonization are inherently ITN worthy. The dont happen often and are important to 1,100,000,000 catholics world wideThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm considering posting this soon - if it's going to be posted I'd like it posted before the end of Australia's Sunday. I'm inclined towards ALT0:
No image, because I'm an image-idiot and I'll break something - obviously smarted folk than what I am can add the image later. Image idiocy issues aside, last-minute thoughts on posting welcomed. Everyone happy with ALT0 as the blurb? (incidentally: BBC and The Age say five others. I've changed "alongside" to "along with" - "alongside" makes it sound as if they were all standing next to each other at the Vatican...) TFOWR 12:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
*Posted. TFOWR, the image thing is easy—if it's a Commons image, just copy it to your computer, upload it locally, copy the tags from Commons and add {{c-uploaded}} or {{m-cropped}}, then change the image on ITN (which is cascade protected, so you don't have to worry about protecting it). I would, but it's taken me nearly 10 minutes just to load this page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. It's mostly the protection that concerns me, and the possibility of being slapped with a large aquatic animal by an editor with a greek alphabetical username... TFOWR 13:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Done. I could do with some sanity-checking: the "(pictured)" right before the m-dash looks wrong. I suspect protection is fine - I took a belt-and-braces approach and fully-protected the image, so with cascading protection as well I suspect I'm safe from fish. TFOWR 14:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There wouldn't happen to be a article we could link to that lists all the saints that were canonised today? It seems strange that we only link to one of them. --PlasmaTwa2 15:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there any mention of the 6 new saints somewhere (if so, it should be linked) instead of mentioning info that is not there. In that case all the noms without pages on ITN/C page could be up(Lihaas (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)).
Nothing was mentioned at WP:ITNC, so I'm assuming not, (emphiasis added) until proven wrong ;-) TFOWR 15:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we take it off them?Lihaas (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The word saint has many applications: to use it in one restricted sense, and without explanation say that the word can only be attributed to one Australian in history is to greatly favour one definition. Suggest Six new saints are canonised by Pope Benedict XVI, including Mary MacKillop (pictured), the first Australian thus recognised.Kevin McE (talk) 21:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Think it would be better to list them either under "cannonisation" or the Pope's list of those hes beatified, seems absurd to lsit the others under 1 person's sainthood.Lihaas (talk) 15:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
====Chechen Parliament Shooting====
*There are reports of a shooting at the Chechen parliament building. MSNBCDCT•C 05:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
6 people were killed, including 3 terrorists and a parliament administrative manager.[74] I have created the article. Offliner (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose unless something big comes out of this. Terrorists attacks are not uncommon in Chechnia and I am not convinced a separate article is required. Btw 6 people dying of which 3 are terrorists does not shout ITN worthy. Nergaal (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Even in areas where attacks are common, an attack on the seat of government itself is always notable. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
High profile attacks like this are uncommon in Chechnya these days. The violence has reduced a lot in the last few years. The situation is different in neighbouring republics like Ingushetia. Attacking the parliament is about as high profile as you can get, although this one directly involved only 3-4 terrorists. Offliner (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. An attack on a national Parliament is an internationally notable event. Well, more than a routine election in nowhereiziistan anyway.MickMacNee (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment--Chechnya is a sub-national entity, not even a 'partially recognized' state at the moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Parliament attacked. It shocked. --TarzanASG (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that it's been posted (and I'm not sure we have a decisive consensus yet), shouldn't we state what country it's in in the blurb?--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Hm. On the one hand, most people would know that it's in Russia, just as we would state that someone became Governor of California, not Governor of California, United States. On the other hand, I'm sure some people will say that, by omitting Russia, we're somehow recognizing a Chechen independence that does not exist either on paper or in fact. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, posted. Suggestions for improvements are welcome. WP:ERRORS is probably the best place for that because I'm struggling to load this page on my dodgy connection but that's smaller. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Former President of Pakistan (1993-1997) dies at 70. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
support death of former head of state -- Ashish-g55 13:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm on the fence - he wasn't President for that long, really, and he was 70 at the time of his death... f o x 13:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I need a fence for fencing my garden. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to join Fox on the fence. He wasn't exactly young, nor was in perfect health according to our article, but he was head of state of a nuclear power. I wouldn't mind seeing this go up if the article were adequately updated considering it's a slow news day, but I'm not brimming with enthusiasm either. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. What did he do exatly? President of Pakistan for 4 years doesn't cut it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, but if we want a Pakistan story, the one below about them having been found to be involved in the 2008 attacks on India might be good. Ks0stm(T•C•G) 15:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose insignificant figure in Pakistani politics--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
He was president for 4 years, equal to a single term in many countries. That's not a short time in politics. I can't say how significant he was--the presidency of Pakistan has evolved over the years--but as I understand he was the country's commander in chief.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Also forced out of Office by a national uprising for tampering with the constitution. Not exactly a Jimmy Carter type figure The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Being a Jimmy Carter type figure is not an ITN death criteria. i'm not sure of how much impact he had on pakistan's politics but the above comparison is not a valid by any means (atleast for ITN inclusion) -- Ashish-g55 20:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose we have millions of Pakistan stories and this guy doesn't seem particularly exciting - Pakistan punches far above its population weight on WP:ITN. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose PM and the generals are the main folks YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Very Strong Support for this one. An official conclusion that a major terrorist offensive against a sovereign nation was directly (Not tangentially) aided and financed by another sovereign nation is major international news a la Bay of Pigs, 1979 Soviet Coup in Afghanistan, Etc. This, while war is still extremely unlikely, gives India legal Casus Belli. Cwill151 (talk) 03:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree wtih Cwill151, and support. The relevant section seems to be updated. Ks0stm(T•C•G) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Indeed its not just updated in the Relavent section its been a "Good Article" for while now The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support per nom--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Weak support considering very few updates have been posted on the ITN lately. Nergaal (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Seeing as everything above this seems to have (so far, at least) been for the most part roundly opposed, perhaps this could be posted, since it has no major objections and the timer is red? Not sure how to word the blurb though... Ks0stm(T•C•G) 18:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
=P What I seem to be doing is confusing previously released material with the information in this current report. Give me a sec, I'll update the article with at least the fact that the new report was released. Ks0stm(T•C•G) 19:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries! While you do that I'll work on a blurb - unless anyone else has any ideas? TFOWR 19:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I updated with the very basics ("An Indian report was released in October 2010 concluding that Pakistan's intelligence agency had aided in the 2008 attacks, providing funding for reconnaissance missions in Mumbai.") and the Fox News AP article as the ref...as for a more detailed update, someone better than me at prose synthesis will have to expand. Ks0stm(T•C•G) 19:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I added some more prose, too. I'm a bit "edited out": if someone suggests a blurb I'll post, but I'm going to grab a cup of tea before I try thinking about words again ;-) TFOWR 19:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm nominating this as a separate item from the defence cuts below, as it's unclear whether people are supporting/opposing the defence cuts alone or the larger story today. To repeat my argument below, Support the story on today's spending cuts pending an updated article. The biggest budget cuts in decades (edit: biggest since WWII), and the cutting of half a million jobs, is pretty noteworthy. (If a corporaton announced that many cuts, would we post that?). It's not just getting reported in the US (top of the NYTimes btw), it's also top story at Al Jazeera, reported in Le Monde and Toronto's Globe and Mail. If this happened in the US there would be overwhelming support. We've reported several domestic US stories, such as the Don't Ask... ruling. This seems to be notable enough. Plus, we can combine this story and the previous defense cuts announcement, which certainly affects foreign policy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Reiterate support for reasons stated above. Have expanded Spending Review (United Kingdom), though barely scrapes the surface of today's events. yorkshiresky (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Support per Johnsemlak, I don't think defence is enough, but the overall budget cuts are worthy of posting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
To me, this seems like the only nugget which will really interest readers who aren't British or living in the UK. Physchim62(talk) 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The nuclear aspect - a 25% reduction by a nuclear power, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council - makes this an international story. Support. TFOWR 20:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
*Support like TFOWR said 25% of its arsenal! They also have the 3rd largest arsenal on earth so its big news. I wonder if it will put them below france in arsenal size... The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
*:I think that's already the case: Force de Frappe. France managed not to blow up all their nuclear weapons in the Pacific... TFOWR 23:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
*Support half a million jobs. One employer removes 1% of the entire nation's population YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Commment Where is the 25% reduction mentioned, it's not in either Spending or Defence Review? --Stephen 00:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
*Support, major implications for the UK, especially the defense cuts, which also has worldwide repercussions due to the size of the UK armed forces. C628 (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
* Support. wonder where all these jobs would go. looks like the once mighty Queen cant afford a Christmas party this year(USAToday)--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
* Support per aboves. DCT•C 04:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
*Posted as budget cuts, as I couldn't see mention of 25% reductions in nuclear warheads... --Stephen 05:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Historic event for the country of Burma/Myanmar.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose firstly the article on Myanmar is called Burma so you'll be exposing a Wiki politics issue (you're talking about the country changing its name from A to B, when the countries article is called C). Secondly because it doesn't seem like a particularly major change. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you call changing a countries name and flag "not a major change"?.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Also its no big secret or controversy surrounding the Burma/Myanmar issue...Its like with USA sometimes its called the US, USA or the United States or the United States of America.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It's nowhere near similar. --Golbez (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The new flag was just adopted. I say wait until the new Congress (elected on 7 November) opens, which will mark the new constitution and new flag. Grsz11 21:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't get it. Nothing changes in the internal politics. Nobody seems to understand the point of this change. The situation is the same. It almost sounds like NK threatening to do another test: whoring for international attention? Or doing this to try to give their population something to contemplate about. Unless there is a proven reason/motivation behind this with some actual implications, this is even less notable than an election. Oppose. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I only asking,, if lets say Norway was to change their countries name then would it be notable and be put on the ITN section, we all know that would happen. So why is it any different with Myanmar...? --BabbaQ (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Because it's Myanmar DCT•C 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If "Norway" changed to "Acmeland" - maybe. If "Kingdom of Norway" changed to "Glorious Kingdom of Norway" - probably not. And that's what we're looking at here: "Union of Myanmar" becoming "Republic of the Union of Myanmar". The junta have stuck "Republic of the" at the beginning. It's not something I can get terribly excited about. TFOWR 21:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
@TFOWR, quite. (edit conflict) If flag changes have precedence I'll Support that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Malawi changed its flag a few months ago with no and that got an ITN mention. Kevin McE (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm more sold on the flag change than the name change, but not by much. Check the comments at WP:ITNC for the Malawi flag change: it was posted because "the timer [was] turn[ing] red", Malawi's a "unanimously recognized nation", the article had been updated sufficiently, etc. (And compare the updates to Flag of Burma). If Flag of Burma was updated I'd consider supporting. I'd still oppose the "Republic of the" name change, however. TFOWR 21:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
oppose I am not convinced we need to and TFOWR sums up my thoughts nicely The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
While this is the kind of thing that interests me, I wonder if it interests many of our other readers. There's a certain geek/cruft aspect to this. Certainly if France or Canada were to change its flag, there would be some reader interest, but I just don't think the BurMyanmarese flag is something that that many people would care about. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Support the changing of a national flag certainly seems newsworthy and encyclopedic to me. --PlasmaTwa2 03:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Administrator noteThe article still needs to be updated. It looks to me as if it's getting shorter, not expanded, and the flag image seems to be a retrograde step as well... TFOWR 10:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur with TFOWR. There's next to no new material on the flag change apart from someone's personal observation that it looks a bit like Lithuania's. This can be posted when we have an update. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose flag change, supportname change, which I find is far more important than the flag. --Golbez (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Flag change is very significant, and interesting too. Nightw 15:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Support It is not only a flag change, but name of the country and national anthem too.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
support per encyclopedic value of the news. -- Ashish-g55 17:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Support. Historic national change. However, if Cyclone Giri is posted then we may end up having two simultaneous Myanmar/Burma related stories. The long-running article name dispute is irrelavent, and can be discussed in the meantime. ~AH1(TCU) 18:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Support precedent is Malawi.--Avala (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a real dearth of good reliable references – BBC and CNN haven't even covered the change! I've updated the article as best I can with what I found. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 14:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Good enough for me - at least the image is of the correct flag now! ;-) If you (or anyone) suggests a blurb I'll post it. TFOWR 15:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
New flag of BurmaThe government of Burma announces the adoption of a new flag(pictured), as well as changes to the country's official name and national anthem.Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 15:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that we ASAP put this Burma story on the INT section as it will soon be an old story.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
* Posted. I've left out the name change and national anthem as they're not mentioned anywhere in the Burma article, the Politics of Burma article or the Flag of Burma article. If someone wants to update one or other of the articles the blurb could be expanded. I've not done the image as I'm short on time and dropping by Wikipedia as time permits. It should be a good image, however - I can't see the Wikileaks story (current top ITN item) having any relevant image. TFOWR 16:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Wheres the prose precedence mandates:
====World Gymnastics Championships ====
Have finished. Major sport in many countries, particularly former/communist and strong anti-communist nations eg US, S Korea, Japan YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Not a major spectator sport, except during the Olympics. I recognize a lot of people like and/or participate in gymnastics, but we have to limit sports results to those that have the most interest. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support if it is the highest level of gymnastics. Not really interested in gymnastics but can't think of any reason to leave it out completely, especially if it is followed in many countries. "Mitchell, Bouhail make gymnastics history" also sounds promising. --candle•wicke 03:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Article--still needs a prose update. From where I'm sitting, Gymnastics is indeed a major sport in Russia, and several stars are household names. There's even a decent Russian Wikipedia article on it. However, I think in Russia the 2010 World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships are bigger, and also going on right now.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Rythmic Gymnastic championships finished on 26 September: not sure where that came from. Same editor got confused between the two different styles of Gymnastics last year, and ended up supporting this one then. Kevin McE (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, these different gymnastics types seem to be my bane. When I checked Russian media sites I saw headlines for Russia winning gold in Rhythmic Gymnastics and I assumed it had been recent. It is a big deal here--get's a bit more press that Artistic Gymnastics (or 'Sport Gymnastics' as the Russians call it.)--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment It was nominated last year and wasn't posted. There wasn't much (any?) support and the article wasn't satisfactory.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
The Rhythmic Championships were a month ago... Courcelles 08:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Whoops. Got the dates mixed up.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support Top level, genuinely international sport. Kevin McE (talk) 08:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I broadly support this event as per Kevin McE and YellowMonkey but recent precedent at ITN seems to not favor this kind of item. I'd point to the 2010 FIBA World Championship for Women and the 2010 FIVB Men's World Championship as similar examples--top competitions of sports with broad world-wide participation but limited media interest. Sporting events with less broad participation but strong media interest get more support here (I'm not necessarily criticizing that, though I would favor posting all the examples above). The current state of the article is also a prohibition, though fixable. In this case, it might be notable that the most prestigious gymnastics competition is really the Olympics.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Support as the sport has a fanbase even in the US. Proposed blurb: Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
*China tops the medal table at the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships
**Prose added to All-around for mens and womens' team and individual. Can it be put up now? YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
**:Done Prose looks fine to me. Would be nice if the lead and background was longer but it's good enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
[03:24] <+GorillaWarfare> Lihaas what is it?
[03:25] <+SpitfireWP> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jasmine_Revolution
[03:25] <Lihaas> "Jasmine revolution" was unilaterally reverted against the grain of consensus.
[03:25] <+SpitfireWP> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasmine_Revolution&action=history
[03:25] <+SpitfireWP> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2010%E2%80%932011_Tunisian_protests#Name_of_the_article_-_Revolution
[03:25] <+SpitfireWP> Links @ GorillaWarfare. :P
[03:25] <+SpitfireWP> Lihaas believes the move was unwarranted/unsupported.
[03:25] <+Gfoley4> Lihaas: Where is the consensus?
[03:26] <+GorillaWarfare> I don't see consensus here
[03:26] <Lihaas> were in an ongoing discussion and a recent edit already debunked the notability thereof
[03:26] <Lihaas> there wasnt, thats my point
[03:26] <+SpitfireWP> Ugh, those logs are messed up. *hates moves*
[03:26] <+Gfoley4> Lihaas: Just move it back
[03:26] <Lihaas> im not sure how to
[03:26] == Mono [~Mono@wikimedia/Mono] has left #wikipedia-en-help ["You had me at scrolling."]
[03:26] <Lihaas> can an admin do so
[03:26] <+SpitfireWP> Gfoley4, looks like it's done some frog-hopping anyway.
[03:26] <+Gfoley4> move reverted
[03:27] <+Gfoley4> mhm
[03:27] <+Gfoley4> the same person reverted their move
[03:27] <+Gfoley4> Lihaas: Article is correct?
[03:27] <Lihaas> yeah seems so now, thanks anyways gutys l)
[03:27] <Lihaas> ;)
[03:27] <+Gfoley4> wait
[03:27] == Mono [~Mono@wikimedia/Mono] has joined #wikipedia-en-help
[03:27] == mode/#wikipedia-en-help [+v Mono] by ChanServ
[03:28] <+Gfoley4> for further reference use this:
[03:28] <+Gfoley4> !move
[03:28] == MonoAI [~MonoAI@wikimedia/bot/MonoBot] has joined #wikipedia-en-help
[03:28] == mode/#wikipedia-en-help [+v MonoAI] by ChanServ
[03:28] <+Helpmebot> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_hidden_move_button.jpg
[03:28] <+MonoAI> Helpmebot http : //en
[03:28] <+Gfoley4> ^
[03:28] <+Gfoley4> O.o
[03:28] <+Mono> sorry
[03:28] <linda> I have uploaded the picture
[03:29] <+Prodego> bah double redirect on the main page
[03:29] <+Gfoley4> lol
[03:29] <+Gfoley4> I'll fix
[03:30] <+Gfoley4> Fuck
[03:30] <+Prodego> no don't touch it
[03:30] <+Mono> aah!
[03:30] <+Gfoley4> Prodego: I can't
[03:30] <+Gfoley4> I want to move it with the en dash
[03:31] <+Gfoley4> Prodego: Could you move to 2010–2011 Tunisian protests ?
[03:31] <+Mono> Anyone have AWB?
[03:32] <+Prodego> Gfoley4: I know what I'm doing
[03:32] == Logan_WP [~Logan_WP@ool-4a59f71f.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #wikipedia-en-help
[03:32] == Logan_WP [~Logan_WP@ool-4a59f71f.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Changing host]
[03:32] == Logan_WP [~Logan_WP@wikipedia/Logan] has joined #wikipedia-en-help
[03:32] == mode/#wikipedia-en-help [+v Logan_WP] by ChanServ
[03:32] <+matthewrbowker> @Mono I do.
[03:32] <+Gfoley4> okay
[03:32] <+Mono> matthewrbowker, what's a good task to do?
[03:32] * Mono is bored
[03:32] <+matthewrbowker> Whenever I'm bored, I choose to run random articles...
[03:32] <+Gfoley4> thank you
[03:33] <+Mono> hmm
[03:33] <+Mono> maybe CAT:CLEANUP?
[03:34] <+matthewrbowker> That might be a really good task...
[03:34] == IShadowed has changed nick to IS|School-FFFFF
[03:35] <+Gfoley4> School-FFFFF?
[03:35] <+Gfoley4> odd name for a school <_<
[03:37] <Lihaas> thanks guys
[03:38] <+Gfoley4> np
[03:39] <+Gfoley4> Prodego: Do you think move protection is necessary?
[03:39] <+Prodego> for 1 move when the original mover moved the page back?
[03:41] <Lihaas> possible future moves to be pre-mepted
[03:41] <+Gfoley4> Actually, nvm
[03:42] <+SpitfireWP> linda, excellent.
[03:42] <+Gfoley4> They need consensus though
[03:42] <Lihaas> whihch seems to be some time away
[00:50] <Lihaas> !helper can someone see why ref #9 comes out in a differnt format at
[00:50] <Lihaas> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011
[00:51] <+Algebraist> missing ]
[00:52] <+killiondude> yep.
[00:52] <signify> logout
[00:52] == signify [62464a5a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.98.70.74.90] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[00:53] <+GorillaWarfare> ><
[00:53] <Lihaas> killiondude was that response to me?
[00:54] <+killiondude> Lihaas: [[Reuters] should be Reuters
[00:54] <+killiondude> I was just agreeing with Algebraist.
[00:54] <+GorillaWarfare> Algebraist got it
award
The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
I hearby award Lihaas for his contributions to India content on Wikipedia ,especially regarding Lok Sabha consitutencies and to let him know that his contributions havent gone unnoticed. Thanks and Keep up your good work -- TinuCherian - 06:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
.
This editor is a Grand Tutnum and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge with Coffee Cup Stain.
The Cleanup Barnstar
For your copyediting efforts during the Guild of Copy Editors'September 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive, editing 12 articles with a combined total of 12,560 words, I have great pleasure in presenting you with this barnstar. On behalf of the Guild, thank you for your participation, and see you at the next drive. – S Masters (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
In sincere appreciation for your hard work and patience fixing things, correcting sentence construction, gramargrammer grammar and style on a sometimes bi-lingual, hugely popular breaking news article about teh the recent 2010 Copiapó mining accident. ¡Muchas gracias! Veriss (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
On 30 October, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article(s) 2008 Assam bombings, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.
On 12 April 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Hungarian parliamentary election, 2010, which you recently nominated and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Done, thanks! TFOWR 14:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Administrator note The article still needs to be updated. It looks to me as if it's getting shorter, not expanded, and the flag image seems to be a retrograde step as well... TFOWR 10:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
