RE:Image Language

Yes, you were ;-) Romance languages are all very similar. For future reference, when you see words with tildes on top of them, it's Portuguese, when they have grave or circumflex accents, it's usually French or Italian, and when they have acute accents, it's either one of the above or Spanish. --Boricuæddie 02:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My second guess was Italian. I was in Spanish in HS for a bit, and I saw Amor... and well the rest is history :-) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC) is Down is down, and lots of blogs are abuzz wondering as to why. Can I write a story on this, if I can only source it to blogs and the fact that the site itself is down and people wondering as to why, or can a story only go up if there is some mention in secondary news sources? Wilhelm 04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

I'm going to steal the Dragon's spotlight, and say that it sounds like a very interesting story as long as it isn't all speculation. Source our other story about Tom Cruise's video leak :-) Thunderhead - (talk - email - contributions) 04:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I've never written an article not completely sourced to secondary sources before, so I guess I would have to be creative if I were going to write it. Not sure where to get a screenshot from. seems to be loading now, just very, very slowly... How do I "source" the other Wikinews story, isn't that sort of circular sourcing? Wilhelm 06:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  • How's it looking so far? Wilhelm 07:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
    • Can you get a relevant screenshot? Wilhelm 07:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
None to get really. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, no worries. I added a "QuoteLeft", and with the {{Scientology}} navigation box at the right, it looks pretty good. I just wish more sources would come out somewhere, still looking... Wilhelm 07:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Can you semi-protect the article? Wilhelm 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Main Page

OK, how do you get an article on the main page? 04:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

All articles end up on the main page when published. Users pick and update the lead articles. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

why was my article rejected?

"Anonymous" article

I agree with you, and made a note about it on the talk page, Talk:"Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology". Wilhelm 00:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

why was my article denied?

PD articles

I object to your removal of the copy-vio tag from the article Iraq explosion kills 15 and wounds 132. It is clearly stated on Wikinews:Public domain news sources as well as on VOA's own site (on this page) that their material is not Public Domain when it comes from newswires. As that is the case with VOA's Explosion Kills 15, Wounds 132 in Northern Iraq (see bottom of article) this is a copy-vio. --SVTCobra 02:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope what you do is not copy and paste articles "on a daily basis", it is not what I do. Please read the policy on this when you get a chance. Further, I suggest you also read the ongoing current debate in the Water cooler and you can also check the archived discussion on the Water Cooler. If VOA says that the text is copyrighted by someone else, then we cannot copy it. Just because they "rebroadcast" it doesn't make it PD. --SVTCobra 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some information for this report was provided by AFP, AP and Reuters. --B.J. T. Wagner 02:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Their text is PD...and that's their text. If you claim that then what we do daily is copyvio. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Their text is not PD when they are copying from AP or others. If we then copy VOA its a copy of a copy and then we might as well copy from AP directly. --SVTCobra 14:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I hope this gets sorted out. --B.J. T. Wagner 02:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem...don't hesitate to work on the article. Your welcome message can help get you started. I hope we didn't spook you :-) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Jason! :) -- 02:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It will, BJT, but I think you'd be better off doing a rewrite from multiple sources, rather than copying VOA. --SVTCobra 02:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling me a copyviolater? -- 02:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews:Admin action alerts

Curious: At what point does this stop being AGF that this user is merely bringing up questions, and start becoming purely a venue of harassment and trolling and nonproductive circular complaining by this individual? Wilhelm 20:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

He can complain all he wants...but as you can see the admins are on your side. So he is at this point just trolling. If it gets worse then we can consider options. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. I just fail to see the usefulness of a user and a discussion thread whose sole purpose is "trolling", as you say. Wilhelm 21:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well he really hasn't done anything wrong yet. And now that he sees he is getting no where, then there is nothing to worry about. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Time to focus on other things, such as developing sources for new articles... Wilhelm 21:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Is it newsworthy to have a brief bit on a book after it hit #1 on Top Sellers and The New York Times Best Sellers list a week after it comes out? Wilhelm 21:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose yes, but so long as WN:NPOV and such are followed accordingly :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
So much stuff coming out, so many sources hitting news at once on different topics, gotta see which ones to write... Wilhelm 21:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI - "Unauthorized" Tom Cruise Bio Hits Number One on, New York Times Best Sellers list. I did my best to include viewpoints from the many various angles. Wilhelm 05:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Related to the Anonymous Raids and 711chan

Hi. I'm an admin at 711chan, and in case you need any information or details on any of our current projects.. drop me a line. AIM: Evil Radio Inaki MSN: IRC: #711chan (plasma)

why was my mosaic health solutions article denied?

drew (i havent used this site and it seems very confusing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Healthyguy9 (talkcontribs) 04:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello again ;-) I am an active user at the Spanish Wikinews, and I would like to be an accredited user to be able to interview Puerto Rican politicians for that wiki. Unfortunately, we do not currently have an established accreditation system there. However, I recently saw another user request accreditation here and use it to interview people for the Spanish Wikipedia. My question is, could I do the same? --Boricuæddie 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you can try here. Please provide detailed links to your SP user page, your contributions and what you have done and what not over there. Explain why you are coming here to ask for accreditation. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! --Boricuæddie 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for welcome message.

user_talk:gppande Gppande 12:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


I don't know if it is possible for that image to be free-use. Remember we are dealing with an organization here with a history of litigation. How can using their trademarked symbol be free-use? Cirt 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't upload anything from was already there. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I know - I think all those "Scientology symbols" on the Commons, should not be there. They are all in violation and are not free-use. How about using one of these instead to represent the Scientology angle?
  1. Image:Hollywood scientology building top.jpg
  2. Image:ScientologyCenter1.jpg
  3. Image:ScientologyShopTottenhamCourtRd.jpg

Cirt 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not their full symbol...but basically a make-up of one. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Even so, best to rather use a more obvious free-use image, perhaps one of the images from above with "Scientology" in it, than a trademark? Cirt 17:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure...ask commons? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean here on Wikinews. If you feel comfortable using this image you created, then fine. But since you created the image I'd encourage you to get another opinion on this trademark which really should not be on Commons and is not free-use, and perhaps instead use a different image that is undisputably free-use, like a photo of a building. Cirt 17:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Checked with commons, and its ok. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good, they're the experts. Cirt 17:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous plans to protest Church of Scientology on February 10

What do you think of the article? Cirt 00:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Not as exciting as the rest...but its good :-) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That's okay - so long as I get at least one Admin or respected editor to sign off on my work, to avoid ... well, you know. Cirt 03:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the Associated Press recently put out a brief piece covering the February 10 planned protests. Their story about it went out on the 31st - 2 days after the above was published. Cirt 21:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet versus Scientology

It seems like there are at least one or two accredited editors doing pending original reporting research related to this topic, and then I'm of course looking for notable developments that are either really notable enough to have an exclusive article for - or where newsworthiness has been established already w/ similar articles first in other media. Perhaps we should have a uniform topic subpage somewhere to coordinate? Cirt 05:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Mebbe as a subpage off of Portal:Internet or something? Cirt 05:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Possibly...or an infobox. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh, I actually like the more general {{Scientology}} box that was created by Brianmc (talk · contribs). Cirt 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

217 protests worldwide? Wow. Cirt 06:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So far yes :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"Anonymous" plans to protest Church of Scientology on February 10

Can you please comment on the talk page re Simeon (talk · contribs)'s major changes to the article waaaaay post the publish date? My tendency is to leave the article as is, as it was on date of publish, save for any very very minor copyediting or grammatical errors. Cirt 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't loads of external links (that aren't to Wikipedia or a sister project) to be avoided within the actual article text? Cirt 22:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Article is generally not updated extensively after 24 hours. And to your second question: external links get listed in sources, or in an external links section. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's what I thought, on both counts. Some anon-ips keep trying to update the stats on the amount of times the YouTube vids have been shown, but I want to keep them as it was as of the date of publish. Cirt 22:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Application of abandoned tag

Isn't it a tad bit aggressive to use the {{abandoned}} tag on articles which have sources that are today (Jan 30)? example --SVTCobra 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...didn't see that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks.

I know you want to keep this organized, but my anonymity is important. The people in charge of the protest are aware of my participation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you plan to participate in the protest, we can only accept video and images. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

711Chan Stops Hosting "Project Chanology"

Can you please move this article back to its previous title? This really should not be changed this long after the article was published. Cirt 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


That was fast. I don't object to the revert - but I would prefer it in the future if you could explain a revert like that with an edit summary please? Cirt 04:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...but I did say on your talk. Its only been a few hours...Would it be ok to wait? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No prob, of course we can wait - just in the future please add an explanatory edit summary when you revert like that? Cirt 04:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course...I was just too quick...apologies. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries :). I may not be online when you feel enough time has elapsed, so if you feel it's appropriate you can put the newer article up instead. If not, that's okay too - as I had said before the article you did w/ Brian is really good. Cirt 04:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology page

Alright, I have a bone to pick with you. I added a few paragraphs to the bottom of the church of Scientology page. None of these were lies, all were quited directly off of wikipedia or from Scientology papers. Everything there was to invite the public to come to their own conclusion instead of the one that is being forced down their throats.

Yet every time I try to offer the public some fair an unbiased knowledge, it is knocked away by you. Multiple times even, not two seconds after I click the save button. It's like you were sitting there, waiting for me to post, so you could once again make sure my words are not seen.

What the heck? Did I lie? did I do anything against the terms? I looked it up, and I did not. Yet you banned me, and also banned me from appealing.

The only violation that has come is from your end of things, and that would be unfair removal of information with no cause to do so.

You make me ashamed to call myself bisexual, when you so willingly filter out knowledge from the public's eye.

Wikinews: The free news source you can write! (only if our mods like it. if not, tough)

Enjoy your hypocrisy, dude. if you're anything IRL like you are online, you must be a sad, lonely human being.

PS: if you think this comment is serious, I have a bridge to sell you.

One: old news. Two: No sources: Three: New news = new article. Plus, I was not the only one to revert you. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology: '"Anonymous' will be stopped"

You may wish to have a look at recent alterations to the intro text by JustaHulk (talk · contribs). Cirt 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the talk comments and respond there before jumping into the fray. I would hate to think that you are deliberately misusing and misrepresenting your sources. Thanks. --JustaHulk 14:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to 711chan article

"Maybe the case, but at the time that was NOT his opinion."

You're right, at the time of the first article that wasn't his opinion. Unfortunately for you, that has fuck all to do with why the note was added in the first place. The note wasn't put there in order to change the original quotes or to edit the original article, and it certainly wasn't put there to say that the article was wrong at the time of publishing, what the note was there for was to point people to the fact his [Plasma's] opinion has changed. Which it has, and you cannot deny that.

This is the reason the note specifically stated "recently", which, in this context, I'm sure you'll recognise as meaning "since this article was written". It's important to point this out since people reading the "711chan calls for..." article might not directly find the more recent set of quotes due to them being in an article who's title has absolutely nothing to do with 711chan.

So, considering the fact your reasoning for removing the note has just been shot to pieces, and assuming you have no other reason not to, re-instate the note.

Oh, and feel free to delete this - so long as you acknowledge it I don't give a shit.

Fallen-Griever 22:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Allyn Root wins Missouri Libertarain Primary

I recently did an article on Wayne Allyn Root winning the Missouri Libertarian primary, which I was told needed some cleaning up. I did this and put the 'Publish' tag on it yesterday, but it still has yet to appear on the main page. If it is not ready for publishing, that's fine, but please put it back under 'Development'. If you think it is, please try to get it on the main page. Thanks for your help.--WNewsReporter 15:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this user was referring to Wayne Allyn Root wins Missouri Libertarian primary and the the reason it was 'invisible' was a corrupt {{date}}. --SVTCobra 02:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC) mistake :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

For your contributions to Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds anti-Scientology protests worldwide

I hereby award you the Original Reporting Barnstar for your contributions to Wikinews international report: "Anonymous" holds anti-Scientology protests worldwide Skenmy(tcw) 13:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Dirty tricks used to get "Message to Scientology" video pulled from YouTube???

Do you know anything about this?

Anonymous Coward Says: February 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Read that comment.

The video "Message to Scientology" on YouTube had last been viewed 2,347,511 times. Now, if you try to view it on YouTube, you get the message: This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

Let me know if you hear more about this? Cirt - (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The other 2 videos by the same user are still there: Church0fScientology. Cirt - (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a Digg link that has gotten a bit of traction regarding a similar issue re: YouTube suppression of information. Cirt - (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is some more info: YouTube is blocking nearly all anti-Scientology content. Cirt - (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow...very interesting and sneaky. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me know if you know of any secondary sources covering this yet. Cirt - (talk) 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't see any atm. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Vid appears to be back up now, w/ the old vid count of over 2.3 million views. Wonder what happened there. Cirt - (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews is "instrumental"

As awesome as it sounds, I don't think Stanford called us instrumental; some Flickr user did. The description of the image does say the diagram is to be used at Stanford, but the pop-ups reading "Wikinews", "OhMyNews", etc. are not part of the actual image and were added by Flickr users. Notice how Wikinews is also listed on the far right side of the image, under a different username. ~Planoneck~ 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the notes are the same as used in the referenced "Comm 217, Digital Journalism" class it seems it would be the opinion of the professor teaching the course and not the official position of Stanford University. --SVTCobra 22:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I e-mailed the person who uploaded the diagram, a professor at the university, and he said it was used in a class and in a research project. The report, as he said is not published yet, but did not specify when it will be. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiding your face in aprotest is stupid and wimpy!!!

so you believe that we as US citizens have the right to Freedom of Speech... So if you are standing up for what you believe is right than you must have som pretty big cajunas... so why hide your face, it can be just as peaceful as showing who you are, and showing that you believe in what you are doing. i believe hiding you face behind a "scarf or hat.." is a waste of time, and you shouldn't even bother to protest. Showing your face is not going to harm you in anyway, especially if you are only using your Freedom of Speech within limits. you arent hurting anyone, you are just making yourself look wimpy!!! 02:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Angelica

Stanford calls us instrumental

Is that part of something coming WN:SOON or more something for Wikinews:In the news or Template:Wn news? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I was told to put it there because it didn't belong in hte topic of the wikinews IRC channel........ DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Block of Planoneck?

Hi DF. Why did you block the user Planoneck? I was surprised to see that and went back in his contributions. Couldn't see anything obvious. Was he blocked in error or did I miss something? --Jcart1534 - (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It was an error...i clicked the wrong name in an edit history of an article and accidently blocked that name. I unblocked though so everything should be ok. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that would have been a surprising block. --David Shankbone - (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have question

Hi how can you do that like that those words on the talk like when you ~~~~ four tildes like youw text like talk to dragon thing how do you do that. Transparent Blue - (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)