Recent event that led to blocking of Administrators and several users edit

Once I have been unblocked, I will place this on my user page.

I have a log of events in IRC discussing recent events on the article Pennsylvania man named in alleged terror plot. Although I dispute any FURTHER edits on this article, it has been moved backed to develop and into a protected state based on NO actionable objections.

Several users calim the article is a US POV. I am sorry BUT the event happened in the US, the alleged plot was going to happen in the US, against the US and the alleged plotter is a US citizen. Does someone want Egypt to investigate this? Maybe China? Lets be realistic. What other government could possibly comment on it? Just because a user does NOT like the US or its government, that gives that user NO right to enforce HIS or HER POV on ANY article. Wikinews policy strictly states that ALL articles MUST supports a NPOV and ALL objections bust be actionable. Saying that the US is not a "credible" source is not an actionable objection.

The recent events on the articles talk page byt useres on it have lead to the block of an administrator. Here are the said blocks: Multiple user blocks related to Pennsylvania man named in alleged terror plot.

I was blocked for advice I recieved from an administrator. The advice and the events that occurred from that advice were all done in GOOD faith. In fact, several hours of discussion in IRC lead to said changes. The reverts I made were good faith and were also to UPHOLD policy that was being broken. As far as I know there is nothing anywhere that says only an administrator can uphold policy, and I encourage someone to prove me wrong. Although my block is only for a little less than 8 hours, I still believe it was unjust. Policy is policy and my reverts were tro uphold that policy.

I think the article now need to be published, and protected as I am no longer going to voice concern of it as my concern has been clearly spelled out on the articles talk page, and the other so-called objections by the useres are NOT actionable.

Wikinews, in my opinion, is a major news source. Millions op people visit Wikinews and the other projectrs combined, daily. POV is NOT allowed and thats what makes this agency BETTER than any of the others.

Futhermore, I also believe, with the exceptionof the administrator(s) involved, that the users involved in reverts and editing to suite their POV, have teamed up. They are the same users who disputed this article: U.S. airstrike targeting Ayman al-Zawahiri leaves 18 dead in Pakistani village and this article: Pakistani Official claims 'foreign terrorists' among civilians killed in U.S. airstrike and this one: Al Qaeda bomb maker reportedly killed in U.S. airstrike in Pakistan. It is my belief that because those users do not like the US or show a very high dislike for the US, that the users have INTENTIONALLY delayed publication of those articles including the one that is in question today. Once again, if you do not like the US then thats NOT my problem nor is it Wikinews' problem. The users POV on the US Government cannot and will not influence any article on this site and I will uphold any policy to make sure that any user anywhere will not and cannot voice their POV about a nation's or a country's government. Period. We are reporters and Wikinews is NOT an editorial or a blog. Jason Safoutin 03:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

a little answer to your rantlike (?) text if your interested edit

here International 12:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Protection edit

I have noticed something. There are articles as old as if not older than September of 2005 that are NOT protected. Recent edits show that. I also know that articles that are at LEAST 2 weeks old, SHOULD be protected. Given the fact that the Senate and other government agencies are making unjustified edits on Wikipedia, I think that all articles older than 2 weeks NEED to be protected...ALL OF THEM. Recent edits here: Second night of violence in Belfast, although in good faith, show that IF the Senate or any other agency were to come over to Wikinews and start making UNJUST edits, they can easily edit old articles NOT protected and those edits MIGHT go unnoticed. Although this edit was reverted based on the WN:NOT policy, other edits could go unnoticed and harm articles. We should really get up-to-date on protecting. Comments? feel free to respond. Jason Safoutin 11:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles I HIGHLY Dispute edit

I must say I am very disappointed in some individuals who participated in the editing of the article 18 killed in U.S. air strike on village in Pakistan. The article was changed from its original story of Zawahari being a target, to being very very bias and in my opinion, misleading. I do not think I have seen a worse collaberation on news than this. While all the major outlets still report that Zawahiri was in fact the target, We do not even have a headline or a "real" article to support the sources stated in the article. The article was supposed to be based on Zawahiri being a target and was changed into talking about the victims. I think this article should be reverted back into the state of talking about Zawahiri (when the article was created as breaking news, the headline was "Zawahiri possibly dead"...and now it ended up to its current headline: "18 killed in U.S. air strike on village in Pakistan." I hope that everyone will learn from this experience and when other IMPORTANT news comes along, we can all work on it together. I must say I am very disappointed. Shame on you guys/girls. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
I must say. This is yet another form of BAD reporting/collaberation. I believe this article was changed and altered to fit a POV. I currently dispute the article and it was published under dispute. We are here to report, not force others to see our political beliefs. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Images edit

Please remember to source your image uploads and to make sure they are in compliance with our Fair Use policy --Deprifry|+T+ 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of red user name edit

Why is my name in red when I look under "new pages/articles"?

When there is nothing posted on your user page, then your moniker appears in red. The discussion page is used by the community to address you. The user page is used by yourself to post whatever sparks your fancy (Most people use it to profile themselves).-Edbrown05 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Good Thoughts People have left for me (feel free to add some) edit

Really nice job! Comet Wild samples near home is a great article. Thanks! - Amgine | talk en.WN 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

HEY DRAGOne hurt by Russian gas deal]]

Articles that I have contributed to MAJORLY and/or MAJORLY edited edit

Articles I published before I had an account edit

Deleting and editing comments edit

It is not really considered good Wiki-ettiquete to remove comments from another user's talk page, if you wish to retract what you say, use <s> and </s> to strike out a comment. Deleting a comment made by another user on your talk page is a big no-no. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the comment above, deleting a comment made by another user on your talk page is a big no-no. The vast majority of material you have here should perhaps be on your user page. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually removing comments on your own talkpage is permitted, however it is considered extremely rude. Combined with other acts it could become part of a reason for blocking as it shows an extreme lack of wiki etiquette. When you remove comments the polite thing to do is to archive them and/or remove all the comments on the page --Cspurrier 15:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

dragon not to be mean but really man sometimes you can get to people!

If you must delete comments, at least put a warning up saying something along the lines of "I delete comments that have been dealt with and are no longer needed" or something. However I highly recomend you archive your talk page as it gets to long (move comments to a subpage like User talk:DragonFire1024/1 or User talk:DragonFire1024/archive/1) as that is generally considered much more polite. Bawolff ☺☻  00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

<looking> edit

Whats is {cats}? edit

What does {cats} mean?

Usualy the word cats is short for categories. I don't know what the curly brackets mean. they usualy signify a template, but theres no template cats. Bawolff ☺☻  03:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I was wandering... edit

around some nooks and crannies here, and came across something you may find of interest.

You have excellent writing talent, and so does the major contributor in the article linked to (now a former contributor). The advice given by Davodd on the discussion page was written before I became involved here, back in March FYI, and reports on what you will see was a major news event. Bear in mind that the article was created shortly after the birth of Wikinews in November 2004.

Best regards, and thanks for sharing here with your interest in the news. NO

To give you the context of why I sent this, the well researched and fascinating Distributed computing to get "interstellar project" article comes close to breaching some of the Davodd comments, namely a sense of immediacy.

If you are like me, you are less interested in criticism than you are interested in what some person can do to improve upon what has already been posted. I would ruin that article in trying to change it. So please don't take my message here as criticism, because what I am trying to do is help us be better with less effort, and I also want to be a part of the happenings here. -Edbrown05 05:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok...I just got out of work...what are you trying to say? this is not news?. I think it IS news. This is about a project that could possibly change the way we look at oursleves. It could possibly answer some of the questions as to why or how we are here. I do beleive that something that NASA is willing to let the public participate is big news. And for free. So I am sorry when I say this but I think it is news. Its current and its an even thats about to take place. I never marked the story as breaking, so where is this article not news? Its not boring, as you did say the story was "facinating" is a little long but not too long. Most articles in a paper on on another news site are much longer. And this article is not meant for as immediacy. It is however news. -DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 13:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think it is big news. The "distributed computing" topic from the headline was not reported until I lost count of how many paragraphs into the story. Sorry I wasn't specific before. -Edbrown05 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Sharon story edit

Hi there, I've noticed that you "updated" the Ariel Sharon story. This is contradictory to site guidelines, as per WN:NOT:


5. Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Developing articles are marked with the {{develop}} template. Once written and published they are historical documents; they should not continue to be updated or changed. Especially, they should not be altered to an angle or POV not reflective of the article as it was published. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia.

Additionally, try to avoid putting periods into headlines (titles distinguish start of a story, whereas periods denote the end of a statement). Thanks! --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Featured/Lead article edit

The lead/featured articles are a few days old...shouldn't they be updated? (with something more current...or about something that is happening or going to happen? And if so, am I able to do it? if so how? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, of course! Go to 'Write/edit articles' listed on left column navigation box. There are links there for Top, Second and Feature leads. The template is fairly straight forward to edit (as far as templates go). -Edbrown05 03:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
If you mess up, don't worry, if you don't get it fixed, somebody will :) Edbrown05 03:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you guys DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirects edit

How do I fix redirects when I or someone changes an article title? DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

Iran resumes nuclear research edit

Could you please explain this edit? "Revert, continued vandalism"? You reverted the addition of wikilinks, categories, interwikilinks and spelling fixes. Why? --Deprifry|+T+ 22:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps putting up an image with an iran map with a nuclear symbol (like an atom thing). And so many people made so many edits and some of which were continued vandal, I put it back the the artile revision I thought was best. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 22:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but there is not a single incident of vandalism in the entire history of the article. And there was no dispute whatsoever on the image. User:TUFKAAP put it in here and I don't think you can call him a vandal. --Deprifry|+T+ 22:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
My mistake then. I thought I had seen where it had been removed preveiously...i am sorry. They can put it back up if he/she likes. And I am sorry about the wikis. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

al-Zawahiri article edit

I appreciate that you are seeing the article the way that it was written. I apologize that you had to go with those mindless discussions with two users who are, IMO, too wrapped up in ideology to even report on what someone states without skewing it to make it look like the US is the devil. The best way to deal with these kinds of editors is to ignore them as much as possible (I know it's hard to on this article, so I'll have to thank you for sticking with it for the good of Wikinews). In time, the article will be picked up by other editors which will determine that the article is about the reports, and that the two users are trying to spin the story off into something against the NPOV policy. Thanks again, --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You post on my discussion page to leave the story alone, then you change the headline, inappropriately. -Edbrown05 01:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Only because someone sited it for ANOTHER clean-up. I fixed 2 things and thats that. There is NO MORE REASONS to change the article DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
I must say I am very disappointed in some individuals who participated in the editing of the article 18 killed in U.S. air strike on village in Pakistan. The article was changed from its original story of Zawahari being a target, to being very very bias and in my opinion, misleading. I do not think I have seen a worse collaberation on news than this. While all the major outlets still report that Zawahiri was in fact the target, We do not even have a headline or an artcle to support the reports. The article was and is based on Zawahiri being a target and was changed into talking about the vistims. I move that this artile remain in NPOV until A) everyone can agree on a headline/title and on the wording of the article B) it is reverted back into the state of talking about Zawahiri...or C) request the article be deleted on the grounds of NPOV and misleading information. I hope that everyone will learn from this experience and when more IMPORTANT news comes along, we can all work together. I must say I am very disappointed. Shame on you guys/girls. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

tags edit

On articles which have the deletion request tag, you must leave that tag if it has been listed on the WN:DR. On articles which have the minimal tag, but not the deletion request tag, that tag should be left to let admins know the article qualifies for a speedy deletion. Thanks! - Amgine | talk en.WN 03:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be discouraged... edit

Please don't be discouraged by the negative comments of others. Pay attention if comments about you or to you are constructive; discount comments that are hurtful or non-productive. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not to worry, I am not easily discouraged. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin
I'll also extend some form of "don't be discouraged" message as you genuinely seem to be an enthusiastic contributor who just needs a bit more time to settle in. I understand you've had a run-in with a POV warrior, please don't let this encourage you to become one for the other side. It is very important to become part of the community and seek constructive criticism rather than defend your work against all comers. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dragon I would like to reply and say if i critisized you from before sorry man you were just riding my behind and I got pissed but hey if its mutual its cool...

Portal for Iran edit

Jason, you could start a portal by copying an existing one (example Portal:Middle East and replace Middle East by Iran.... I am not realy kown what the consenses is about the best example as there are many different approaches. HenkvD 22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Jason or Dragon a major edit is going on for Al Jazeera good job! I'am hopeful to see a lot of good information thanks WM

Airstrike article edit

I will look at this article momentarily. I strongly encourage you to *work*with* other editors, and stop opposing them. When an issue is disputed, suggest a compromise text on the talk page. Work together to find text which is factually supported by sources. Where there are sources stating a fact, and it is relevant to the news event, do not oppose its inclusion. Likewise, where there are not sources do not attempt include it. This guideline applies to all parties. - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I had to leave earlier -- but the article has been published. Does this mean that you guys found some middle ground? --Chiacomo (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

"expand" you ment? dragon...

Re: Articles I HIGHLY dispute edit

I noticed your comment on this in Recent Changes, and thought maybe me waffling some bullshit on your talk page might help you put the POV of articles in perspective, or at least start taking an interest in this rather difficult aspect of Wikinews. You are a good writer who I'd like to see stick around, but you need to start looking at how the media around the world reports on stories. For example, if you're doing a story on some incident of US military action, at the very least read how Al-jazeera report on it. To you that, as a source, may seem completely unreasonable and laden with Anti-US sentiment. To their readers and viewers it seems a reasonable report, based on their world-view. What you will generally find is that the facts are the same, but the specific facts given prominence in the differing reports will completely alter the "colour" of the story. We want the facts in black and white. Anyway, enough waffling. The basic message is don't become a "POV warrior", contentious articles will take longer to get to {{publish}}, and widen what you read to try and minimise conflict with people who read/watch different media. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Alright, calm edit

I appreciate your enthusiasm on the CNN article, but perhaps we should just back off for the night. I'll take a jab at it tonight, and if there are still issues, we could take them up later. Sound good? --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats your problem? edit

The article was untill I changed it Breaking. Go back to the policy and inform yourself. I really hope you calm down. International 09:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is still unclear who the aledged terrorists are. Dolrums edit is pointing at that. International 09:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Terrorist article edit

I don't want to, but a story like that is a little too big to keep in development for that long. Compromising items is a common thing here to avoid wars - if it were a "large issue", I wouldn't support the publishing. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • It is factually correct, although I agree if you made the claim that it needs to be attributed more clearly. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Published articles edit

For the record, the not editing published articles rules is (a) more intended at older articles, and (b) not absolute even for very old article (and even less absolute for more recent ones), but the single most important reason is:

Long ignored wiki pages are vandal fodder---few people read old news, so admins here protect all old news.

In particular, its not appropriate to apply the rule when the creation of a new article is also not appropriate. For example, we vote to merge stubs with existing publish artciles on WN:DR all the time. In general, the question you should ask yourself is: Are the changes newsworthy on their own? If they are, they deserve their own article. If not, they should be mergd with an existing article, if its not too old. So the case you must make to prevent ongoing modifications is simply: these new changes diserve their own article. Even in that case, the new changes will still mean the addition of related news links, or even extremely brief notes about the future news.

Anyway, I'm sorry your havving such a hard time with some people here, but try to just relax, most changes to published article won't be to egregious. BTW, I've actually written an article, published it, watch it get tagged as NPOV & abandonded based upon content added after I stopped paying attention, and then seen everyone vote for deletion on the ground that it was old news. So their is a problem here, but we can't solve it by locking published stories. A wiki must be relaxing if it is to survive. Nyarlathotep 15:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden picture edit

What chance that image was actually taken by someone working for the US Government? Ed g2s 16:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Portal Blues edit

If someone makes a POV portal it will generally end up dealt with, although it might take a few days. For a lot of things I think you're a good contributor who pretty much understands the rules that float around Wikinews, but because you've not quite got to grips with it being a community you expect more immediate reactions to things you believe to be outside those rules. We have people from all over the world, which slows down decision making a lot, but things work out well. Be a little more patient, and a little more widely read, and I think you'll fit right in - especially if you follow the development of controversial articles under our current administrators. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Iran moves finances out of Europe's banks edit

I just wanted to let you know; that I thought Iran moves finances out of Europe's banks was an intresting article. Keep up the good work! Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden edit

Dreadfully sorry for the whole mixup with saying that the article was not POV, You could call it a tipo, but at least you got the message propperlly.-- 16:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Valdivostok edit

You do realize that ITAR-TASS is the news source the contributors to this article are accusing of lying and covering up the story? - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

No, where they are able to support factual statements in the article they should be kept. Remove sources which are redundant or not used in the article. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

2nd lead article edit

It's a good article which needs to address some additional issues. It's very heavily drawing from the original court ruling, and probably needs to be trimmed to focus on the decision and less on the possible repercussions, but I'm working on it. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Miners edit

It's a copyvio. The first two paragraphs - including the lede - are word-for-word copy (will check the rest) - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Stardust@home edit

Hi, got your talk page message. I saw your work and looked at the talk page. Looks very promising, how can I help? Awolf002

I just wnat some more info that I may not have up on the page. anything will help. Jason Safoutin 23:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Can you fix the big blank space in the david anderson interview article? Jason Safoutin 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I moved things around a bit, but it can be unpredictable exactly what you'll get with different browsers/resolutions. I see less whitespace with the changes, but others may not. What to do if you want to rearrange things a bit more is move where the images are and the wikipediapar boxes are. Just stick them in at paragraph breaks. Looks good to me, but I have a big hi-res monitor. :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 18:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't delay the story on the basis of a press conference being postponed. I'd put the interview up just to annoy all the organisations that would have been at the conf. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Would you do the honors of putting the Stardust article as the feature or lead on the front page? Jason Safoutin 15:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If featured was older I'd put it there. Definitely shouldn't replace the Canadian story as top - so you're kinda stuck there - sorry! I expect the next featured story to be the EFF interview. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Applicable Explanation Demand edit

A clear demand is made for a specific explanation to be provided for the reversion of the Ayman al-Zawahiri releases new tape article entry made as per referenced WN:NOT; no entry has been made knowingly to the article Al Jazeera airs new Osama Bin Laden tape. On the question of addition of information that was available at the time but not included in the article yet the user Amgine and I had discussion in that article discussion page that reached conclusion that such as done in my former edit that you reverted is permitted. The single potential meaning that is yet possible without further explanation for the meaning of the reversion is that the degree of detail added was excessive, as in the end no further modification was made in the last edit if care was taken to see what had been changed by it. Perhaps the relative location within Pakistan is not as useful, but as it was added by another user and it prompted me to include the village name it was retained. I demand that the information village name of Damadola and its presence in Pakistan be restored in the least to the line as follows in the form otherwise approved with only that addition rather than the edit previously made if the case of excess detail was the meaning intended: "On the tape, Zawahiri makes no mention of the U.S. missile attacks that killed 18 people, including women and children, and is suspected of killing 4 terrorists last week in the village of Damadola in Pakistan." This makes the event referenced obvious when future review of the article is done, as it is also a goal I have been told that the articles serve as records. There is no justifiable objection to this from in WN:NOT policy to any degree as the only change made is to clarify the event referenced. Opalus 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

TEA edit

☻ Someone has poured you tea

Weather poll edit

Can someone activate a weather poll in the newsroom? or at least tell me how to? I added a poll to Wikinews: Polls, regarding restarting the weather section...someone help? Jason Safoutin 19:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. However it may not be technicly possible to restart the weather service. Bawolff ☺☻  20:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Thats what I've heard, I may have incorect information. Bawolff ☺☻  20:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation edit

I need some arabic (presumably) text translated...any takers? Jason Safoutin 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe try asking at the . One member at least can speak english and is ocassionally on IRC. Bawolff ☺☻  02:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections edit

Sorry I had to remove your vote on Wikinews ArbCom elections, you are needed to have been an wikinews member for over an month to vote on the Wikinews Arbcom elections. you only been here since 2006-01-09 Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)