User:DragonFire1024/archive February 2009-August 2010

Could you please explain more fully... edit

Could you please explain which clauses of WN:SG you think Former Guantanamo captive turns himself in falls short of? Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When I read it, it sounded more like a Wikipedia article than a news one. Just my opinion though. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, this doesn't really help me address your concern.
So, in order for this article to be published, someone has to review a checklist of half a dozen items?
Am I correct that no one who starts an article, or has edited it, even just for spelling or grammar, is authorized to check off items from that list?
But those whose edits have consisted of applying tags might be authorized check items from that list? Can any uninvolved contributor check off items from the checklist?
Am I correct that it is not likely anyone is going to perform the checks on the checklist so long as tags like your remain on the article, because they make it look like those working on the article aren't taking other contributors concerns seriously?
Could you explain the role of peer review? Is that how a contributor challenges a tag?
I am not ignoring your expressed concern. But I can't address it without a more specific explanation. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
As above, could you reply on the collaboration page? Geo Swan (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you placed an {{abandoned}} tag on Former Guantanamo captive turns himself in. Back on the 24th you moved this article from {{review}} to {{cleanup}}. I believe I have addressed every specific concern anyone has raised. I asked you to be specific. You were unwilling or unable to do so.
I don't know how the role of a wikinews editor differs from that of a wikipedia administrator. I don't know how contributors come to be wikinews editors. But, if the role of an editor is anything like that of a wikipedia administrator, I think they have a responsibility to explain their rulings.
Let's be clear here. You sent this article to limbo. You were unwilling or unable to offer a meaningful explanation as to why you removed the review tag. Other contributors can't address concerns you can't or won't explain. Specifically, I can't address concerns you can't or won't explain.
We are all volunteers here, and on the other wikimedia projects. We are all going to have opinions. And, since we do this in our spare time we are all entitled to let other volunteers address problems or issues we don't have time for.
But you have been entrusted with authority other contributors aren't. When you don't put on your editor's hat you can be forgiven for not fully explaining yourself. You are a volunteer working on the project in your spare time. But, it seems to me, when you put on your editor's hat you do have a responsibility to explain yourself. It seems to me you shouldn't feel you have any choice, you have an obligation to explain yourself.
If you don't have the time or patience to offer a civil, meaningful explanation for a ruling I suggest you refrain from making one. Geo Swan (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Its not a 'ruling' anyone can remove the tags and do work on an article. I believe I stated the reason clearly. It needs to be written like a news article. It is written like an encyclopedic entry and does not even get into the point of what its about until the end of the article. I did not 'send' anything into limbo. I added the proper tags and its up to whoever else to either fix the article or not. Being an editor is not an authority. They decide, when it is placed in review if its fit to be published or not. If not the proper tags are added. Even if work was done on it to clean it up, it is now over a week old. So unless anything new has come of the story, then its old news. I restored them before and another in the same fashion, and no one was interested in fixing them. I have a real life. That includes working 5 days M-F. I do what I can when I can if I have time to do it. That goes the same for everyone else. It may not be a lot or it might be everyday, but regardless of that, its not my fault no one else chose to make the necessary changes. Sorry if it seemed I was not clear earlier. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
You wrote above that anyone can add or remove a tag. When instantiated, the {{cleanup}} tag says:
This article has been nominated for editorial cleanup, that is, an editor considers it not to be publishable in its current form.
Isn't the tag saying only editors can apply it? Doesn't that imply only editors can remove one?
I don't think anyone is asking you to spend any more time on the project than you can afford. I am not asking that of you. But if, as the tag implies, only editors can place or remove the {{cleanup}} tag, then you have been entrusted with special authority, which, as I wrote above, I think you should only exercise if you have the time to explain yourself. You don't have time offer a civil, meaningful explanation? Fine. Leave the article for another editor, who is capable of explaining themselves.
Your comment: "...does not even get into the point of what its about until the end of the article..." This is the closest you came to explaining yourself. Are you saying that the first sentence should have been rewritten so that it repeated what was in the headline -- that Abu Hareth surrendered. If that is all you meant let me voice my frustration you didn't simply say so back on February 18th. If this is all you meant, let's be clear -- this would have been a trivial change to make.
As you note, above, it has been over a week since Abu Hareth turned himself in. Please appreciate I started this article within a few hours of the first publication of news of his surrender.
When I looked at User:Bawolff's contribution history I saw he had recently contributed to Wikinews talk:Contributor Recruitment. I took a look at the contents of Wikinews:Contributor Recruitment#Contributor retention. Let me ask you, in your opinion, is there any value in the established wikinews contributors acting in a welcoming and encouraging manner to good faith newcomers? Geo Swan (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I never said once your edits were not good faith. All contributors edits are good faith unless they are vandals of course. I appreciate all the work wikinewsies do. But in all honesty, if they are not interested in the news or the article, the likelihood of them doing anything to it are slim, though that is not the same for me. I have real life to worry about and work to worry about among other things. Yes I placed the tag but again I am not the ruling party. I am not above anyone and anyone can edit the article and remove the tags if the issues have been solved. There is no one person who has a final say in anything. Sorry if you think I am being rude or mean, but I don't like to be pressured either. And that is exactly how I feel. Again I am sorry. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, perhaps you think I am unfairly pressuring you. Perhaps you think I should drop my questions, because you have offered an apology which I could choose to interpret as an apology for failing to state your concerns in a way that would be helpful to new contributors.
I am going to ask you three questions.
  1. Correct me if I am wrong, you are an editor, and an administrator, and have been entrusted with additional authority?
  2. The {{cleanup}} tag does currently state it was the judgment of "an editor"? Do you not see that this tag strongly implies only another editor is authorized to remove it?
  3. If you think the wikinews policy and what the tag states are at odds, what steps do you think should be taken to modify the tag to conform with the policy? Geo Swan (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
This is silliness, the template has always said editor - even before flagged revisions was introduced. You are the first to be confused by this, I will change it to contributor. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Develop edit

If you want to participate that is fine, my opinion is it is ready to be published. If you disagree post something on the talk page, don't keep deleting the publish +tag. First World War (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, then do your check and let's get this article published. First World War (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, how goes the fact check? Who is doing the fact check? First World War (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't now if anyone is doing one right now. We do the reviews and such when we have time and are around. We don't get paid to do what we do here so stuff gets done whenever. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't get paid to write either, you have had a chance to edit it and others can edit more later, might as well go ahead and publish it, before it becomes old news. What do you say ?? First World War (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, it has been 5-hours and nobody, but you has done anything, would you please Publish the article, thank you. First World War (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am beginning to become quite frustrated, it takes far to long to get an article published on Wikinews, if this article doesn't get published it will be my last! First World War (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
As I said things are done when they are done. And that kind of attitude is not going to make anyone do anything any faster. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 article edit

Could use some graphics. ;P —Calebrw (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mahathma Gandhi's items auctioned for $1.8 million edit

Are you sure it's a copyvio? I checked, and it seems to be okay. Tempo di Valse ♪ 21:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I think there is nothing that is copyrighted from rediff. Can you please recheck again or point where the copyright violation is? -Gvenkat5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvenkat5 (talkcontribs) 21:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Copy and pasting sentences, then changing a word or two is still considered to be copyvio. The URL listed in the template is where most of it came from, as well as the the other sources listed the first time I added the template. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

CopyRight Violation edit

Ok. got it. I think i might have fixed all those now. Can you please validate the page now?

Mahathma Gandhi's items auctioned for $1.8 million

Apartment gas blast in Yevpatoria, Ukraine edit

You left something ;-) Tomasz W. Kozłowski (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The spare bracket? I removed it. Thanks. Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Walking on thin ice: Anniversary trek to the North Pole edit

Thank you for peeking at the article...Did I fix it good enough for your tag? I wrote a note about my intent on the talk page.SriMesh | talk 04:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Totally rewrote the article and renamed it as well.SriMesh | talk 15:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Six vehicle pileup disrupts traffic on highway in British Columbia edit

Hello there again, I see it was also yourself who peeked at Six vehicle pileup disrupts traffic on highway in British Columbia, can it be a Wikinews Shorts article, if it is too tiny? The title has been addressed. Is this what you do when someone gives a comment to a news article page, talk to the reviewer to let them know you have tried to answer their concerns? Do you leave the editorial clean up tag, or remove it? I re-added the review tag, to try to let people know I worked on the opportunity shown. SriMesh | talk 04:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick Question edit

I just became an administrator, and have a quick question for an experienced one like you. I've been beginning to archive articles, but most of them are from October or earlier and have been untouched. Is there a reason for this, or is there a huge backlog? Just have make sure I'm not doing anything wrong with the tools. R.T. 22:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Huge Backlog. I just got done doing December 2008. Anything before that, not sure how much, needs to be archived. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Colleen Howe, wife of former hockey player Gordie Howe, dies at age 76 edit

Another question as you helped with the article in memory of this amazing lady...the funeral arrangements are now avaiable and added to the end of the article...should they be at the top due to the current nature of the arrangements? Also wrote a letter to a primary source to find out if she really really was the first woman inducted into the hockey hall of fame as is stated in a bizzillion news papers, and unfortunately she was not. I copy and pasted my letter and reply into the talk page. The family did receive the Wayne Gretsky Award however, as is noted. Any advice you can offer is appreciated. Thank you for the comment about the title as well. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 21:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

With a quick glance, I think it looks ok. But I am only on for a few minutes right now as I am a bit sick. But it looks good from what I see. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your peek. I hope you are feeling much better soon. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cricket News edit

Can you please take a look at my cricket story and publish? if it stays on for long it might be stale news.

Thanks Gvenkat5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvenkat5 (talkcontribs) 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi...sorry I have been busy today and am fighting off the flu. Unfortunately someone already beat me to the punch, and because of the article style, have been marked abandoned. If they are still around tomorrow, and newer updated sources can be found, then I don't see a problem with publishing them, provided they meet the policy guidelines etc. I apologize for our slacking on reviews, but of the regular contributors we have, about half of them have been sick the past few days. So you can blame me if you like :-P DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson concerts edit

Since the tickets are selling like hot cakes, you might like to write another story on it. Best. 22:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

publish tag edit

Hi Dragon. Per WN:ARCHIVE the {{publish}} tag goes below sources and above cats. Just a minor housekeeping detail. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

That should be changed IMO...Publish should go below cats because it otherwise just puts it al out of order. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

past tense edit

Thank you for your note about past tense, I was too much focusing on active voice I missed the verbs switching from past to present... I think it is also from reading various dated accounts of news reports as well. I will pay more attention. Thanks again...Oh yeah, you are busy this is in regards to Canadian helicopter with 18 onboard crashed into Atlantic Ocean SriMesh | talk 21:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Colonel statue article edit

Thanks for collaboration. I made some comments in Talk Page on title, category and quotation. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Citizens of Arlington, Virginia fight battle to save Gulf Branch Nature Center edit

Can you tell me why you deleted my article? I noticed that somebody put a tag on it that said it was not news because it was out of date, yet it was written on March 8, and covered an event that was taking place that same day? Is there some kind of prohibition on local news? There was even a community rally yesterday with hundreds of attendees that I intended to write a story on as a follow-up, and what the Arlington County Board decides to do about the center will be news on March 24th. However, I'm not going to bother writing another article, if it's just going to be summarily deleted without discussion. It seems like it would be a gigantic waste of time. I'm new to this, so maybe I just don't understand the process.Kborland (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've read through some more of the guidelines here. Shouldn't it have been archived rather than deleted? Especially for a developing story, that way new developments can link back to archives of earlier articles on the same topic?Kborland (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
If the event happened on March 8, and the article was never published, then it doesn't get archived. We have a review process here and the person who published it does not have 'editor status' to publish an article. No one else reviewed it and it was deleted as old news. Since no one reviewed it, it became old news. We allow local news, all kinds of news from anywhere, provided it follows guidelines and policies. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. Sounds fair enough. I will try again when the board meeting occurs. (I saved the text of the old article so I can use it as background info in the new article). Hopefully, the editing process will work like it's supposed to this time. Thanks for responding, and I'm sorry my tone was a bit angry; I didn't understand what had happened.Kborland (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Under review template edit

In case you were wondering, the proper template to use while reviewing an article is {{Under review}}. Tempo di Valse ♪ 01:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh yes that's the one. Thanks! :-D DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OR list edit

  Done. See my talk page. Bawolff 06:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh security tightened following Pilkhana massacre and Bashundhara City inferno edit

Have placed comments to your comments on the talk page. Please advise. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sea levels rise: new flood risks edit

You have been busy taggins. This article can use your kind advice and constructive criticisms now. SriMesh | talk 01:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tempodivalse/Writing contest edit

Hi! I'm just sending out this note to all our active contributors saying that there's an article writing contest that's about to start, if you're interested in participating. Just click on the link above to sign up. Thanks. Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

catStats edit

I found figuring out how many OR articles per year fun, so i made a little tool to figure out articles added to cat in a specific time period. Not sure if you need to do any more of those types of calculations, but thought I'd mention it. Bawolff 11:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

trying to understand time issues edit

I made this edit because the article was based off of a date and the only date was 22 Mar 2009. You didn't accept the revision and sited "this was published on the 21st UTC...not the 20" - wasn't it actually published on the 22, not the 21st? If that is the case - my comments in the summary are that the article needed a date, not the publish date, but a reference date. I am just trying to understand this wiki. Best, MarkDilley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Article dates are the dates of the time the article is published, UTC...So 7:20 pm.m Eastern time, would be 23:20 UTC...If I published an article now, it would still be the 22, for 40 more minutes. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello edit

As a new user I would like to know if wikinews does the same as wikipedia and adopt users. If so I would like for you to be able to adopt me. There seems to be something you would like to talk to me about which I am not understanding. So if you would be so kind as to clarify your position I would appreciate it.SriMesh | talk 00:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm no we don't have anything like that on WN...however if you have any questions and such you can ask me or anyone else :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, as you have one or two articles under your belt and I have a miniscule amount.... how am I doing? Any advice? I know from the school of hard knocks that the polar articles were not what was standard fare for how articles are poured out of wikinews generally speaking. So how about the others? Lay it on thick, tis a good way to learn, and improve.SriMesh | talk 01:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Alaska infobox edit

Yeah, I wondered why I couldn't find an Alaska infobox when I tried to add one to that volcano article a few days ago ... rather odd that there wasn't one, considering there have been quite a few articles with this topic. I created one for Hawaii while I was at it, too. Cheers. Tempo di Valse ♪ 01:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

At least 3 police officers killed in Pittsburgh shootings edit

Hi DragonFire1024, I was wondering if you could give me some specific parts of my article that I could improve?

"Edit for grammar, style and clarity" leaves me a little in the dark.

Herb (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It appears to have been taken care of. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yay! A Barnstar! edit

  The Fail Barnstar
A barnstar for those who truly and epically fail. In this case, you brokez our Twitter icon so badly that I can't make it come back ^_^ --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Language templates edit

Instead of manually using {{Languageicon}}, it is generally easier to use the ISO code for the language in question. For instance, Italian is simply {{It}}. This is easier, but more importantly has the added benefit of inserting a wikipedia link to the language in question, in case a user is unfamiliar with it ie: (Italian)vs (Italian). Of course this only works for languages that we've made templates for. A complete list can be found here: Category:Language templates. Gopher65talk 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles and reviewing edit

That's OK. I quite understand, it is a busy time of year students are into exams and families are celebrating Easter and all that entails, and the season changing means folks are starting to un-hibernate. I have seen that wikinews has quite a different population than on wikipedia, yet it is very similar to the FA - GA process on wikipedia, and the folks that get involved in those mechanisms there. I always believe that things work out in the wash, and if it is meant to be it will be and if it isn't meant to be then that is OK too. I will probably continue presenting articles, and I will continue learning about the review process so I can over time help out there possibly. That part also has been interesting, seeing what exactly makes wikinews tick. Take care, thanks for the note. Kind RegardsSriMesh | talk 21:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Staleness edit

I'm wondering about the horizon for staleness. The template says 2–3 days; does that mean it's definitely okay at 2 days, and discretionary at 3? The question came up for me because you marked a three-day story stale yesterday (for which I've since found a source one day newer, so it's still three-day), here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pi zero (talkcontribs) 13:56, 20 April 2009

If updated source(s) are found, add them and remove the tag, make the appropriate adjustments and such and I don't see why it could not be resubmitted for review. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I'm trying to understand why it was tagged in the first place, though, so as to know how to do things better in the future. You tagged it as stale on the 19th, and the most recent sources were (at that time) from the 16th. Is that clearly stale, clearly not stale, or a matter for case-by-case judgement? Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If I tagged it as stale on the 19th, then it was becasue the most recent posted source in the article was on the 16th. If newer sources, as close to the 19 (or date the tag was added) can be found then a resubmit for review can be made. And yes depending on the news, the type etc, it is a case by case basis because some news is an ongoing thing for two days or even more. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you edit Edmund White on writing, incest, life and Larry Kramer? edit

Hi DragonFire1024. I wanted to edit this article, but it's protected. Can you edit it for me?

Here is what I need done:

Change wikilink from w:Violet Quill to w:The Violet Quill and it will then resolve to the en:wiki article, rather than to a search page. The pipe prolly should also include the leading "the" (with cap), so it reads as The Violet Quill. Thanks. Becksguy (talk) 16:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  Done tempodivalse 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mountaineers 'Climb Up' for AIDS funding edit

Jason, both Brian and I have been in contact with Jim via email. I believe him to be who he claims to be. —Calebrw (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

New question on staleness edit

Hi, DragonFire1024! Actually I do not see that article would be stale because the last news in it (the reaction of the local president) originates from yesterday. Maybe you can explain to me what is meant by it. Regards, --Angela H. (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainly because its a non-english language source. if anything else can be found in English, that is within the past 24 hours, then I would say the tag could be removed. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
whoa, is that a rule u came up with? i had not read anything like that in the guidelines and tutorials. is that why you are ignoring the sources in the article i wrote (U.S. pork plant in Mexico near confirmed case of swine flu) and tagging it as stale? from ur talk page i realize u have little time to explain ur position over issues like this, but i really dont see any justification for deleting this article.Revoluc (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
We don't publish articles based primarily on non-English sources. At least one English source has to exist. See WN:SG. We also do not publish articles based on events that have happened 2-3+ days ago. The article you mention is just that. I didn't just make it up though. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Dragon, are you sure about that? As far as I know, we don't treat foreign sources any differently than English ones in this regard. I can't find anything in WN:SG that specifically says we must have at least one English source. As long as the article is verifiable, I don't see a problem, even if the sources are not in English. tempodivalse 02:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Its somewhere on here. I have seen it more than a few times. But i have to sleep soon. Will look for a few and if I cannot find it, I will look tomorrow. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
sounds fair, but i do have an english source (second in the list) and the last one is from may 2. if thats not good enough, i can easily find more sources in any language since, as i have stated before, this is active news everywhere except in the english version of wikinews. thanks for the quick reply! Edit: as Tempodivalse wrote, the Style Guide doesnt seem to mention that Revoluc (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure as long as the source(s) you find are more recent than May 2. If so you are more than welcome to remove the tag I out on the article. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
ive been doing exactly that, and this is your answer?
"this is stale big time and failed review. please leave tags on article"
the tag u just put specifically says "If sources cannot be found with new details that have come to light within the past 2–3 days this story may be deleted", and the article has new info from 1 day ago. also, i was under the impression that articles can be put up for revision more then once?
i noticed u never shared the reference for ur english-source rule, so i cant help but wonder if these criteria came from the same place Revoluc (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The sources are from April. It is now May. So unless sources can be found, that reflect the past 2-3 days, then the article is stale. This piece is over a month old now. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
i really wish u ppl paid more attention to the content before posting comments like this. the story broke out at the end of april, and the most recent source is from may 9 (i bet right now is may 10 where u live?). u also seem to have ignored most of my previous post. Revoluc (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
It's in the policies. Trust me its there. I would not just make it up. I don't have tim right now to search through the countless pages of policies and my talk page archives to look for it. I can remember clear references made by other administrators. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
im sorry, but u keep missing the point. i will delete the tag and keep updating the article as new information becomes available, until someone proves im wrong about:
  • why should a tag that reads "If sources cannot be found with new details that have come to light within the past 2–3 days this story may be deleted" should remain in an article with new information from 1 day ago
  • why should failing review doom an article for deletion when the "writing an article" page states that "Once the article is reviewed, the reviewer will either publish the article, or leave a message on the article's talk page (the talk tab on the top of the article) explaining what needs to be done before publishing". the previous sentence clearly says that it can still be published
the article is indexed in google and, according to Wikistics, it was already getting a few hits one day after uploading it (even more then the style guide), even tho its never made it to the main page. so even tho u and the "welcome comittee" will prolly succeed in deleting it, for every day that has passed more ppl have accessed the information, and thats already good enough
Revoluc (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Capital letters edit

I understand why "president" may sometimes not be capitalized, but "Senate" in reference to the United States Senate is always capitalized, just as the words Congress or Parliament when they refer to a specific body. – Zntrip (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Review :) edit

We managed to choose the precicely same moment to review that article - may I assume you'll be reflecting the new title in the article itself ? Sean Heron (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

lol I will leave it to you :-P DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm prone to try to avert edit conflicts - so since I'm not sure if your joking above or not: how would you go about the article - I only just noticed that it's not the same two bombings that just happened - so my suggestion would be to integrate the new info into that article ? Ie title - 4 bombings over 2 days leave over 130 dead in Iraq . Sean Heron (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I got myself nice and mixed up there - well, not so nice really :/. Sean Heron (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
what I meant was that you can go ahead and make the necessary changes etc. :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is now so done :D ! I'd still be glad for someone to look over it though. Anyway, I'm headed for bed! Sean Heron (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

swine flu breaking updates edit

Hey DragonFire. Has anyone ever considered the idea of a breaking news blog/ticker? For example, the swine flu details are coming in like crazy today (as you well know.) And, it can be too difficult to add these details to an article as we should. Just a list of times and details would be great during times like this. Herb (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I try to keep as updated as possible in that sense, through twitter here: :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A penny for your thoughts edit

Okay, not really, but I am requesting your participation in the following Water Cooler Discussion: OR and Broadcast report. The discussion involves the need for specific policy concerning how Original Reporting relates to information recieved from a broadcast report of an event. This can include both news-style reports and non-news reports, such as a sporting event. Thanks and again, please share your thoughts on this so we can get as many people involved as possible, especially since this relates to an important topic such as OR. —Calebrw (talk) 05:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Resurrect article ? edit

Hi, I wanted to ask you if you might resurrect "Washington Transit Authority holds hearing" for me - I realise it's old as hell, but I had been planning to see if I could salvage it in some way or other. Hmm, I guess I could look around for how I might save it before you put it up again... I'll get back to you. Sean Heron (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC) - P.S. Perhaps to help us understand one another - would you in my place have published/passed the review of this article? My feeling is that you would have been disinclined. Am happy to chat about things, and open for arguments :).

Temposdivalse dropped it in my userpage - so I'm good for now, thanks :)! Sean Heron (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Five arrested in Canada after C$2 million armoured car robbery edit

Addressed your concerns, now I think. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Dealer leads offer for Pontiac brand edit

You deleted this article as having no context and as nonsenses. I had sources from local sources. Many GM brands (Saturn, Saab, Hummer) are up for sale as pointed out in the article. As it was a open news event, ie. more information could have come out, there was no reason to delete as not being current. There was no reason for the article to be speedily deleted.--Spshu (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted as stale because it was marked stale. I looked at the history, and the article had not been touched since the tag was added. Therefor, according to deletion policy, it was deleted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you would have read the article, you would have seen that an answer was expected by Waldron by the end of last week. Local news source reported more on the subject today. I am not going to reresearch the whole article.
Also if it is being delete as stale then delete as stale then as "no context" & "nonsenses". --Spshu (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was stale, in the sense that all the sources provided were several days old at the time of deletion. However, stale articles are not subject to the speedy deletion guidelines, so I agree it might not hav been appropriate to say no context, not news and linking to WN:SD in the deletion summary. Spshu, if you wish, I can restore the article and move it into a user subpage for you if you wish to work on it, which will then make it exempt from this sort of deletion. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted as "no context", "notnews". That is the option that is used when deleting an article that is over 2-3 days old and unpublished, without updates or etc. The tag says that its not news in its current form as its more than 2-3 days old, according to the last update when the tag was placed. There is a separate selection for nonsense though. However, the selections link automatically to WN:SD. Tempo, also being an admin can verify that. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Just to note, I've split the MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown automated comments into more sections to include "stale articles". I think that might be more appropriate. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer if this type of article was tagged with {{abandoned}} first and then get deleted via WN:PROD. --SVTCobra 21:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the article I saw pubished in yesterday's paper is dated for May 07, 2009, 12:29 PM on the Flint Journal website so probably not going to pass any sort stale rule here. And I do believe I did look on their site on Friday for any articles on the subject. I guess Tempodivalse if you would move it to a user subpage for me, you never know if another article will pop up as GM has not give a final "no" to Waldron. --Spshu (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  Done to User:Spshu/Dealer leads offer for Pontiac brand. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Template:Main page header edit


It is custom on blogs/newssites to include a link to an RSS feed on the front page.

Also, the Twitter link is the only way the public are likely to find the Twitter account. Computerjoe (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

RSS is linked in a few places already. Just before the listed articles by date, on the side bar, an option in most browsers next to the links. Our RSS is updated the same way Twitter is. Not to mention its give or take as to when our RSS is working. If you think it really needs to be there then feel free to readd it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess what I am trying to do in reduce the link overkill we have. We have links to things that don't really need linking, and we don't link to things that we should be. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I can't readd it, I'm not a sysop and I don't want an editwar. Move Twitter to 'Around Wikinews' perhaps and remove the Flickr link (that seems to be unused). However, that being said, there's about 1000 followers on Twitter which shows people are interested in Wikinews on it… that combined with the unusual username (most would just look for 'wikinews'. RSS may not be needed as you are right the image is there. By the way, can I just say on a sidenote I feel uncomfortable with the RSS being hosted by an external organisation (Google). Computerjoe (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
What flickr link? And I have no control over the RSS or who hosts it. And move Twitter where? I am lost. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I know you don't, making a general comment :P and the Flickr link is in 'Around Wikinews' at the bottom right of the main page. Computerjoe (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Test edits edit

Interesting that you think my edit was a "test"! What is it in particular that indicates that to you? -- (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:Protesters against police violence surround London's Scotland Yard edit

Thank you for your offer to peer review the article. I have emailed the OR information to the Scoop email and also added some fresh information to the article. If you could peer review it if you have a chance, that would be great. Thanks, Jules.

Europeans take to the polls edit

What do you think of it now? I've tried to improve it a bit. I'm gonna go to bed now, but I am hopeful that it will be on the Main Page today (Sunday) and possibly there will be a seperate article tomorrow on the results. Jolly Ω Janner 02:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding [1] edit

Meh, you were probably right, the OR and stuff is too far down with that layout to be visible. I wasn't really thinking of that. I probably should have discussed first, but all the threads we've had on the main page before quickly stall due to lack of input, so i decided that the easiest way get something changed was to be bold and do it myself, and hope nobody reverts.   Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 01:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem...I don't mind when people usually make changes to it, so I usually leave it. Continue to be bold though, I like it in terms of the main page. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dealer group seeks to buy GM's Pontiac brand edit

I am not objecting to the deletion but you tagged it "no context/not news" which doesn't seem appropriate. --SVTCobra 02:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the stale tag does state that its no longer news, so I selected it as such. If I could recall how, I would add a stale option to the pull down menu of deletion options. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I actually did create an extra option in the pull-down menu for stale articles, linking to {{stale}} (by the way, MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown is the place to go to change the pulldown menu text). Tempodivalse [talk] 02:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected edit

Can you edit these? edit

Thanks Computerjoe (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Cold you review Hearse key thief spared prison before it goes stale (not to push my luck!). Computerjoe (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers edit

Thanks for sorting out my article on the Iranian recount-out of interest, why is it not a brief? Cheers! Dottydotdot (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the events that are happening there, I removed it because its likely that whatever else happens a new article will likely be created, You can readd if you like though. And you are welcome. I help anytime I can. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 14:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
No that's fine, I was just curious being new! Thanks. Dottydotdot (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced quote on Fred Goodwin-mind blank-sorry about that! Dottydotdot (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem...but the article does need a tad bit more information. Without that quote, the article is a bit small. Good work though :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you edit Paedophilia claims made against "living god"? edit

Hi DragonFire1024. I wanted to edit this article, but it's protected. Can you edit it for me?

Here is what I need done:

The title is misleading in the fact that it gives the impression that there are "new" allegations against Sai Baba when in fact the article is referencing old allegations. I believe the title should be changed to the title of the main article sourced for this Wikinews. "The Indian living god, the paedophilia claims and the Duke of Edinburgh awards" The background section should also mentioned that the US Consular Page on India no longer carries this travel warning. US Consular Page India

Thanks. Sbs108 (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That article is far too old to be making that major of an edit as per WN:ARCHIVE. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason for an edit is that the article is still linked to the current Sathya Sai Baba page and pushes a POV with its non-neutral title and gives the false impression that the US Consular page has a current warning which it does not. Can you please re-consider. There were absolutely no claims made at the time of the article. The title is absolutely false if you read the article. Its a small change that goes a long way in this controversial article. Thanks Sbs108 (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Our policy is specific on not allowing changes of that kind after 7 days: (articles) should no longer be edited on elements of content, sources, or other substance. It should be edited for non-content issues (such as spelling, typos, punctuation and so forth) on a case-by-case basis. 2006 was quite a long time ago. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Harlan Ellison sues CBS-Paramount, WGA over Star Trek royalties edit

Hi! You reviewed this article back in March. However, before it was protected from editing a factual error was introduced to the article. It says that Ellison used his pseudonym "Cordwainer Bird" on the Star Trek episode "City on the Edge of Forever". This is not true. Gene Roddenberry forced him to use his real name, and it has always been broadcast and published thus, with "Harlan Ellison" as the writer. The error appears in two places on the article. If you could fix this it would be great, or I could fix it if the article was unprotected to do so. Thanks! Cheers! --Captain Infinity (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting. I have made the edit; it now awaits review. Cheers! --Captain Infinity (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Protected. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would like to try something... edit

If their is no current simple english wikinews i would like to start one. anyway in knowing how this would be done would help greatly. thank you. -- (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the creation of Wikis. But you can try Brian McNeil. He might know how to help, or at least send you in the right direction. :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a person in an article and have updates about it edit

  1. REDIRECT Template:Editprotected

I am the mother referred to in this article, and I would like to update it with the news that the case is still going on, currently facing an appeal, and also the ACLU is not actively looking into my case, they said they do not get involved in family law.

I have no idea how to edit WIKI pages, sadly, so any help would be appreciated. (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Rachel Bevilacqua

You will have to create a new article if there are new updates. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

What edit

We can't use information from Wikipedia now? -- (talk) 01:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

A source needs to be provided for the infomation. Also the story is nearly 24 hours old, and generally we don't make updates to articles that are that old. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, not this nonsense again. There is nothing about the story itself that I am changing. This is copyediting. If sources for things that are facts rather than reported news are needed I have them here and here. -- (talk) 02:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

User:DragonFire1024/Articles edit

Hey, you might be interested in replacing File:Spiral Galaxies.jpg with File:NGC2207+IC2163.jpg, as it will soon be deleted from Commons because it's an exact duplicate. Cheers, --The Evil IP address (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not updated that page in ages. Perhaps I will replace it later. Thanks for the heads up :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not trolling edit

Those articles are navel-gazing and I can say what I want in the commentaries. Please restore my edits! -- (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Be a bit more careful edit

Your geography is a little off here. Baghdad is not in Afghanistan. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Um...where? I don't see anything wrong...? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 13:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict>Actually, I think I was the one who made the mistake: [2] I forgot to change the picture on the lead. Dragonfire's update seems to have been correct. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yup, sorry. It's the next diff after the one I highlighted. My bad. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kennedy edit

Am I doing it right? I made another attempt. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Thanks for fixing it. Good job. Hope you decide to stick around :) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi edit

Hi, I'm new here at wikinews. I've been contributing alot at en.wp, and I thought I'd branch out a bit. I already understand the wiki environment, but I'm not really sure about the policies and style guidlines here at wikinews. I saw that you're an admin, so I figured you'd at least be able to point me in the right direction. Drew R. Smith (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, quick question. How does the review process work? Can anyone do it or is it only certain people? Should there be some discussion about it before a re-review happenes? Drew R. Smith (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Only Wikinews:Editor can review articles. And usually if an article fails review first time around, the fixes should be made and then the {{review}} can be re-added once the fixes are complete. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Weather World F edit

You sighted a revision of this. The page is maintained by a bot and there should be no user changes to it. I'll tell Drew not to change it. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok I thought you were able to add to it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
You can, but it gets lost the next time the bot updates it, And to be really picky about it, you'd have to check the figures every time someone inserted the weather for their favourite location. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes. that would be annoying and time consuming. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand edit

I don't understand why you deleted this page? This wasn't a big page, but this is not an argument for to delete it.—Bourgetalk 18:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It was tagged as abandoned and no one had edited it in the period sine it was tagged. So as per policy, it was deleted. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sorry edit

It's perfectly fine, I guess I understand now. Someone beat me to it and I had no realization of it at all, but oh well. Maybe next time will yield better luck for me. You probably saw it on the main page and I didn't, even though I refreshed the page a few times. But stuff takes time to get up, I suppose. Thank you again! :) -- M (speak/spoken) 20:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a copy of the message I left here.

Rayboy 8 edit

Please be extremely careful with this user's contributions!

  1. He has so many wrnings for copyright violation that he eventually got a block to get it to sink in
  2. You date-bumped his Gordon Brown article but did not fix references within the article to when it happened (Yesterday does not refer to Friday when you add 2 days to the date)
  3. The article had a {{Wikipedia}} link to a TV show. Which had bloody nothing to do with the content of the article - other than the show being the source of the news item. The Wikipedia article on the TV show would have zero related to the news article
  4. There's STILL some god-awful grammar in the article

--Brian McNeil / talk 09:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any chance that you could update your article list? --Rayboy8 (talk) 11:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I might eventually update it, but It has not been updated in a year or more and would be adding countless articles (not bragging lol). I haven't updated it since about the time we got flagged revisions. Perhaps one day soon I will start again. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing. You may have written over 1000 articles without realising and be the first Wikinews Reporter to achieve Ace Reporter status. If (or more likely when) that does happen, I will happily give you a trophy for it.   Rayboy8 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks DragonFire1024, with the help on the wiki shorts. Mass09 (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please make it possible to tell me how many articles you've written? You may even qualify for a big Ace Reporter trophy which nobody's ever got far as I know. --Rayboy8 (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! edit

Thank you for your review and spectacular copyediting! I just have one question though.

You added a sentence about how Nozette would have made US$225,000. HOwever, I saw in one of the articles this:

"Authorities would not say what prompted their investigation, but an FBI agent wrote in court papers that Nozette acted as a technical consultant for an unnamed aerospace firm that the Israeli government owned. From 1998 through 2008, the scientist "answered the company's questions and, in return, Nozette received regular payments from the company," the agent wrote.

The agent wrote that the Israeli company paid Nozette $225,000 during that span."

I could not find what you put in either of the sources. Not sure if I can move it now that it is published. Thank you!

--Marx01 Tell me about it 01:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well since he was arrested, and has been alleged to be a spy, any and all of his assets have been frozen. So assuming he still has that money, it will be seized from him as part of the investigation. If not having the money, then he will be ordered to pay restitution, whether it be in money, house, car etc... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Alright that makes sense now. Thank you for the reply! Happy Writing/Reviewing/Copyediting/whatever suits your taste! --Marx01 Tell me about it 17:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Same to you :-) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Stale tag on Rail users highlight Teesside Airport 'ghost station' edit

Can you please reconsider this tagging and publish? According to the actual wording of the tag, even though the event happened on Saturday, it wasn't reported by the main stream media until monday, which is when I wrote it up here. That was only two days ago. (And by the by, not even the television news reported it on the saturday, they also waited until monday). I don't mind it being deleted if its just not important enough of a story (I am still unsure if there is a notability type level for wikinews), but I really don't want to have wasted the effort just to lose it on a technicality, when I created it as soon as I had the source. Also, can we lose the map if possible? I don't see how it really helps that much. PerryWhite (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you consider the same thing for AFL provides insufficient support for European leagues: Germany--RockerballAustralia (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What, pray tell, is... edit

the "Unitarian Universalist Church of the United Nations Office"? (Previously asked of Tempdivalse) - Amgine | t 03:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is what was listed as one of the signatories on the Human Rights Watch letter at the bottom. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@en_wikinews edit

Can you please stop tweeting "BREAKING NEWS" that quite well may not be covered on Wikinews? I consider it false advertising and misleading. For all I know you'll repeat a headline from Fox and we're left appearing to be reporting a story they've fabricated. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you make an edit on User:DragonFire1024/Articles edit

An image used on your above user page File:Lakes on Titan.jpg is being replaced on Commons with the higher resolution File:Liquid lakes on titan.jpg. Would you please make this replacement edit on your above user page so that the lower resolution File:Lakes on Titan.jpg can be deleted on Commons. Thanks. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning! edit

Thank you for not warning me on the deletion of Police widen search for Australian child abductor. Please Userfy the article as it will make it much easyer for me to create a new article based off it. Bidgee (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

done...sorry...though it was stale and had no recent edits aside from the tag. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 05:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Points edit

U recently reviewed Former Bosnian president arrested in London. I am participating in WWC2010 and u forgot to update the standings table with the points earned by the article. Just reminding....--Adi4094 (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese police accused of hacking and harrassing Facebook user in Europe edit

DragonFire, I'm only a beginner on Wikinews. I'm aware of a situation which is in my opinon very newsworthy, but without assistance, I don't feel able to write the story rapidly and well.

I'm also deeply concerned about the security and even safety of some people involved, one-time Vietnamese boat refugees who now live overseas.

I've been aware for weeks that a Facebook user in Europe was complaining of being repeatedly hacked.

Yesterday the user sent me a note saying the hacker had phoned and self-identified as Vietnamese police.

I'm concerned also about the desirabilty of making this public. It's conceivable that even this post will be monitored. I'm wondering whether private communication between us is possible or desirable.

Please reply ASAP. Bernard Macdougall (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed something edit

I'd rather people fail in error than pass in error. All the same, I commented on a recent review at Talk:Drunken man is surprised crocodile bit him. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

RFP votes edit

I think I'd have to refer you to Amgine's comment in the vote drama as advice in responding to SwatJester. I know who Xe is; you do not. If this is a close vote, it will likely have to be closed by a steward, not a local 'crat (I certainly can't close it). My biggest issue here is that this was started by someone whose justification was nonexistent, then oil was poured on the fire by a precocious child.

I do appreciate the sentiments you're expressing; but, please choose your words carefully and give solid reasoning. I could scream until hoarse for people to look at WN:RFCU, where I was proven right; and, in relation to the subsequent rapid downhill series of interactions between myself and Tempo that followed on. At least I now understand why. What I cannot forgive is the incalculable damage to the project through putting "being nice" before credibility in the project's output. It's laughable; someone says Wikipedia still won't consider us a reliable source. Google does. But, then again, I'm pretty sure Wikipedia will cite newspapers that have run stories about London buses on the moon.

I highly doubt I'll be getting that requested retraction from SwatJester in relation to his characterisation of my departure from the Communications Committee. He certainly isn't qualified to participate in this vote, regardless of what has been sent to OTRS. Xe is not judging on the basis of what, longer-term, is good for the project; xyr vote is either a proxy for the WMF itself, or how their "management" would like to spin the public relations around this.

Then again, I agreed completely with you that it was an utter embarrassment to have a "Justin Beiber Memoirs" story on as a lead. That is someone who I expect will be relegated to utter obscurity in a few years; and, likely look back with embarrassment on letting some idiotic management company delude him into thinking that a teen could write memoirs; such is a job for your sunset years, not when your first pubic hair is still a fresh, uncomfortable, memory. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talkmain talk 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass panic as Zimbabwean officials fake air crash edit

EPR didn't sight the article, so it ended up in WN:Newsroom#Articles mispublished. I sighted it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

UFO edit

In mitigation, I understand that "wackynews" does not deserve as thorough a review as news about current issues or living persons.

However, it seems to me that your review was not up to your usual high standards.

There are numerous stylistic and spelling errors, incorrect use of the term 'public inquiry', but most importantly, the first two sentences completely misrepresent events.

Here is my suggested draft correction notice for RAF UFO encounters may have been covered up by Churchill and Eisenhower:

The following article is misleading. Letter(s) written by one member of the public in 1999 claimed that Eisenhower and Churchill discussed and covered up a UFO report. The Cabinet Office (not the MOD) reviewed its records in 1999 and found no records to confirm the claim. There was no investigation in the light of the National Archive publication, and there is no suggestion in the sources that there are numerous files relating concern about the claim.

If you are offline I will go ahead and post it, but (as I won't be online much ) please discuss it with other contributors and reach consensus on how to deal with this. I don't think it should be quietly rewritten without a correction notice.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 05:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whats the point of sources, if prior to reviewing, reviewers don't check them!? I a fair portion to total credit for this blunder. But come on reviewers.... BKCW8 talk 08:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I was offline, And i read every source in the articles I review...sorry this was a mistake on my part. I was in a bit of a hurry at that point. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)