![]() | This portal does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's not like we're wasting paper here, and someone offering Hitler's penis for sale seems newsworthy to me. There are actually sources of DNA that can be used to confirm (or probably more likely, disprove) that an accurate identification has occurred. -- Someone else 10:28, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That Michael Johnston entry is so long and stands out so much that it should have its own article. -- Menchi 03:49, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
Is "expressing disapproval" really newsworthy? RickK 07:32, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Is the incidence where two kids got killed near Pec newsworthy? It seems a bit long to me, and I don't think that terrorism (more like civil war) is the right headline. -- till we *) 13:30, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
If the sections are going to become a permanent feature, we should agree on which sections to use. The following list contains top-level sections, and examples for each of them. The examples themselves are also in the form of section titles -- I'll leave it open for now whether we should use generic or specialized section titles. Let's just come up with a well structured list:
Please edit this list. —Eloquence 03:20, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
I like the idea, but what happens if something fits into more than one list? Where is it put then? Fr example, former Irish Prime Minister is being investigated for financial 'irregularities' by a Tribunal of Inquiry under a judge, set up by an Act of Parliament. Should the Moriarty Tribunal be under Politics or Law and Crime? FearÉIREANN 03:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I would advice against the headlines in this particular case. Not only do I think that the same information better fit as a first word of the notice, followed by a colon, when there is a use for it, I do also find (and this is of course a matter of taste) it harder to read when there are headings for 1/ date, 2/ kind of notice and then 3/ bullets. Then of course, the concerns raised above about categorization are fully valid.
--
Ruhrjung 15:46, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
How add that deleting the stilly headlines without disucssion is somehow in violation of Wikietiquette, but putting them in without discussion isn't. Anyway, the reason I deleted them is because they're excessive. How many items do we get in a day, three or four? How large do you think the Table of Contents is going to get into just two or three days? And as you can see from the above, there's no agreement as to what to call headings. And what purpose do they serve at all? That hasn't been addressed. RickK 23:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree with your intention, but not with your proposed realization.
I would instead propose that a classification according to your above proposed categories is made "mandatory" (in the sence that its usage is not dependent on number of entries per day) but that the classification is annoted:
I agree very much that usability à la http://www.useit.com/ must be given increased attention and observance, and I agree that Current events probably is one very good place to start to set a good standard, but given the organic way this page grows (and given the way I use it, i.e. by several checks per day) I just think the categorization through headlines will make the appearance too messy (as shown the last days), and based on my personal experience it would make fewer people view the page without the intention to add a particular event.
-- Ruhrjung 18:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Please note that white space can be added by blank lines too. You don't neccessarily have to insert headings.
It's obvious that your wish to scan by category and my wish to see instantly what is new since my last peek are conflicting.
No, I don't think my main criticism is that the page was "messy" - rather that it can be foreseen to lead to a diminished interest for the page in that aspect of it which I myself used the most, i.e. as a sort of equivalent to http://news.google.com/ (due to a prognosticised messiness) which in turn might get the consequence that fewer wikipedians consider to contribute to the page. Also the rules for when and how to add headings might discourage some wikipedians.
But I don't really know if that is good or bad. Actually, a too broad selection of contributors might make the contributions more diverse and stylistically less coherent, and in some respects complicate the perception of the page. ;->>
Anyway, I've aired my opinion, contributed with a suggestion. What more can I demand? That you should follow me too? That would be too presumtuous! :-)
--
Ruhrjung 20:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appoints Hermenegilde Chiasson lieutenant governor of New Brunswick.
For major accidents and terrorist activities (even if they're no where as big as 9-11), the casualty/injury report with accurate # doesn't come in days...weeks later.
-- Menchi 18:10, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
Should we add to this page dead people who died naturally or diseased (thereby stirring up no other response than mourning sadness (unlike murders)? Because there's already a part on the Main Page dedicated to them, and also an entirely separate page: Recent deaths. -- Menchi 17:24 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Current events shouldn't include things that haven't happened yet. Thispagemade me check the date on the calendar. I'm removing the thing about mars. Put it back on that date. Mintguy 07:06, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've removed the following story from the section for the 28th of August:
... for two reasons: firstly, the attack that the switch was to avoid was to start on the 16th, and the switch occurred the day beforehand (and was widely reported then), so this doesn't belong on the 28th of August, and, secondly, that it's not really ground-breaking that a large website (Microsoft's Windows Update) switched to a ultra-scaleable hosting company (Akami), nor that such companies use Linux.
James F. 15:41, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Why is the neologism of suicide bombing in preferences to Homicide bombing? Both are coined terms to describe the act ... and, when I attemted to NPOV it, simply by puttin in bombing, I was called a vandal by Wik? [which wik as done before erroneously, over a pervious attempt to state correct facts (ala. the homicide bombing in jerusalem a bit ago)] ... these are links to the history of both words ...
The reason it is better for us to use "suicide bomber" than "homicide bomber" has little to do with perceived merits or otherwise of the terms, per se - it's just that "suicide bomber" is used far more commonly by people in general (compare Google search results for each). Not everybody is going to know what a "homicide bomber" is, whereas everybody will know what a "suicide bomber" is, even if they personally would use some other term (personally, I'd never heard of the phrase "homicide bomber/ing" before I came to the Wikipedia). "Bombing" alone gets round the whole problem, but lacks precision. -- Camembert
Homocide bombing is a nonsensical term. Apart from anything else, homocide is a term largely associated with the US and rarely used outside it. Suicide bombing is the correct and universally understood term.
FearÉIREANN 19:52, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Vandalism is where one user removes a universally understood term and replaces it with their own made up term, simply because they don't like using the universally understood term. It is called suicide bombing and that is the term internationally used. Wiki policy is to use the most widely understood term. Suicide bombing is a clear and precise term; it means the deliberate bombing of a group of people by a bomber who himself knowingly opts, often amid religious concepts of 'martyrdom', to include himself among the fatalities. Bombing simply means placing a bomb to kill others, with the bomber excluding himself from the carnage. Bombing is also a psychological game, with 'tip offs' to avoid casualities but which is intended to cause terror and fear, as well as environmental destruction; users of that 'technique' include ETA, the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA, etc. Suicide bombing is about the deliberate and intentional killing, never psychological games involving tip offs. And because the bomber is willing to die in the process, it requires a fundamentally different police and army response. So the correct term mis suicide bombing on wiki and nothing else. FearÉIREANN 20:43, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) (Discussion continues into September)
Michael Kamen died on August 18th 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.174.52 ( talk) 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
Oops, forgot to log in. Joetheodd 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
i like luxmys birthday at 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.15.238 ( talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\biranmania\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
August 2003. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This portal does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's not like we're wasting paper here, and someone offering Hitler's penis for sale seems newsworthy to me. There are actually sources of DNA that can be used to confirm (or probably more likely, disprove) that an accurate identification has occurred. -- Someone else 10:28, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
That Michael Johnston entry is so long and stands out so much that it should have its own article. -- Menchi 03:49, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)
Is "expressing disapproval" really newsworthy? RickK 07:32, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Is the incidence where two kids got killed near Pec newsworthy? It seems a bit long to me, and I don't think that terrorism (more like civil war) is the right headline. -- till we *) 13:30, Aug 15, 2003 (UTC)
If the sections are going to become a permanent feature, we should agree on which sections to use. The following list contains top-level sections, and examples for each of them. The examples themselves are also in the form of section titles -- I'll leave it open for now whether we should use generic or specialized section titles. Let's just come up with a well structured list:
Please edit this list. —Eloquence 03:20, Aug 16, 2003 (UTC)
I like the idea, but what happens if something fits into more than one list? Where is it put then? Fr example, former Irish Prime Minister is being investigated for financial 'irregularities' by a Tribunal of Inquiry under a judge, set up by an Act of Parliament. Should the Moriarty Tribunal be under Politics or Law and Crime? FearÉIREANN 03:53, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I would advice against the headlines in this particular case. Not only do I think that the same information better fit as a first word of the notice, followed by a colon, when there is a use for it, I do also find (and this is of course a matter of taste) it harder to read when there are headings for 1/ date, 2/ kind of notice and then 3/ bullets. Then of course, the concerns raised above about categorization are fully valid.
--
Ruhrjung 15:46, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
How add that deleting the stilly headlines without disucssion is somehow in violation of Wikietiquette, but putting them in without discussion isn't. Anyway, the reason I deleted them is because they're excessive. How many items do we get in a day, three or four? How large do you think the Table of Contents is going to get into just two or three days? And as you can see from the above, there's no agreement as to what to call headings. And what purpose do they serve at all? That hasn't been addressed. RickK 23:07, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I agree with your intention, but not with your proposed realization.
I would instead propose that a classification according to your above proposed categories is made "mandatory" (in the sence that its usage is not dependent on number of entries per day) but that the classification is annoted:
I agree very much that usability à la http://www.useit.com/ must be given increased attention and observance, and I agree that Current events probably is one very good place to start to set a good standard, but given the organic way this page grows (and given the way I use it, i.e. by several checks per day) I just think the categorization through headlines will make the appearance too messy (as shown the last days), and based on my personal experience it would make fewer people view the page without the intention to add a particular event.
-- Ruhrjung 18:47, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Please note that white space can be added by blank lines too. You don't neccessarily have to insert headings.
It's obvious that your wish to scan by category and my wish to see instantly what is new since my last peek are conflicting.
No, I don't think my main criticism is that the page was "messy" - rather that it can be foreseen to lead to a diminished interest for the page in that aspect of it which I myself used the most, i.e. as a sort of equivalent to http://news.google.com/ (due to a prognosticised messiness) which in turn might get the consequence that fewer wikipedians consider to contribute to the page. Also the rules for when and how to add headings might discourage some wikipedians.
But I don't really know if that is good or bad. Actually, a too broad selection of contributors might make the contributions more diverse and stylistically less coherent, and in some respects complicate the perception of the page. ;->>
Anyway, I've aired my opinion, contributed with a suggestion. What more can I demand? That you should follow me too? That would be too presumtuous! :-)
--
Ruhrjung 20:41, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appoints Hermenegilde Chiasson lieutenant governor of New Brunswick.
For major accidents and terrorist activities (even if they're no where as big as 9-11), the casualty/injury report with accurate # doesn't come in days...weeks later.
-- Menchi 18:10, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)
Should we add to this page dead people who died naturally or diseased (thereby stirring up no other response than mourning sadness (unlike murders)? Because there's already a part on the Main Page dedicated to them, and also an entirely separate page: Recent deaths. -- Menchi 17:24 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Current events shouldn't include things that haven't happened yet. Thispagemade me check the date on the calendar. I'm removing the thing about mars. Put it back on that date. Mintguy 07:06, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I've removed the following story from the section for the 28th of August:
... for two reasons: firstly, the attack that the switch was to avoid was to start on the 16th, and the switch occurred the day beforehand (and was widely reported then), so this doesn't belong on the 28th of August, and, secondly, that it's not really ground-breaking that a large website (Microsoft's Windows Update) switched to a ultra-scaleable hosting company (Akami), nor that such companies use Linux.
James F. 15:41, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Why is the neologism of suicide bombing in preferences to Homicide bombing? Both are coined terms to describe the act ... and, when I attemted to NPOV it, simply by puttin in bombing, I was called a vandal by Wik? [which wik as done before erroneously, over a pervious attempt to state correct facts (ala. the homicide bombing in jerusalem a bit ago)] ... these are links to the history of both words ...
The reason it is better for us to use "suicide bomber" than "homicide bomber" has little to do with perceived merits or otherwise of the terms, per se - it's just that "suicide bomber" is used far more commonly by people in general (compare Google search results for each). Not everybody is going to know what a "homicide bomber" is, whereas everybody will know what a "suicide bomber" is, even if they personally would use some other term (personally, I'd never heard of the phrase "homicide bomber/ing" before I came to the Wikipedia). "Bombing" alone gets round the whole problem, but lacks precision. -- Camembert
Homocide bombing is a nonsensical term. Apart from anything else, homocide is a term largely associated with the US and rarely used outside it. Suicide bombing is the correct and universally understood term.
FearÉIREANN 19:52, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Vandalism is where one user removes a universally understood term and replaces it with their own made up term, simply because they don't like using the universally understood term. It is called suicide bombing and that is the term internationally used. Wiki policy is to use the most widely understood term. Suicide bombing is a clear and precise term; it means the deliberate bombing of a group of people by a bomber who himself knowingly opts, often amid religious concepts of 'martyrdom', to include himself among the fatalities. Bombing simply means placing a bomb to kill others, with the bomber excluding himself from the carnage. Bombing is also a psychological game, with 'tip offs' to avoid casualities but which is intended to cause terror and fear, as well as environmental destruction; users of that 'technique' include ETA, the Provisional IRA, the Real IRA, etc. Suicide bombing is about the deliberate and intentional killing, never psychological games involving tip offs. And because the bomber is willing to die in the process, it requires a fundamentally different police and army response. So the correct term mis suicide bombing on wiki and nothing else. FearÉIREANN 20:43, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC) (Discussion continues into September)
Michael Kamen died on August 18th 2003. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.148.174.52 ( talk) 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC).
Oops, forgot to log in. Joetheodd 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
i like luxmys birthday at 2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.15.238 ( talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessaryily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\biranmania\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
August 2003. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)