User:International/arkive2

Did you intend to post bogus blocked messages?

What were you thinking? BTW, you can still edit this page. Also, see MrM blocked, then released. StrangerInParadise 05:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, in a obviously not so easy to grab sense of humour I wrote theese "bogus" messages to some wikinewsies who, whatever they liked/understand the humour in them or not, easy would remember that I am not an administrator whith blocking priviledges. The messages was properly signed. And there is not a question of incite false blocks as the message is a separate part of, if there is a interest by blocking administrator to inform the subject, the blocking process. Btw I have no time for editing the coming days so I take th block with equanimity. Thanks for your concerns StrangerInParadise. I hope you also can see the bizarr humor in this real block as a contrast to the general not funny situation on wikinews. Im sorry if I made wikinewsies angry and hurted their feelings and made your effort to help me in vain. International 12:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I knew you were just kidding around; I always get a bit giddy when I am blocked. Glad you are taking the thing with equanimity. Neutralizer 15:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Peace

I, Brian New Zealand hereby ask for peace from now on (i.e. no more edit wars)

If you are still blocked, may I enter your support of my 3RR proposal?

I just realized why you haven't voted yet. Please let me know what vhat vote and comment you'd like added, if any. StrangerInParadise 08:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked you as 3 days seems excessive, I feel you were blocked for long enough. Welcome back, please edit with care. Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 08:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to understand your reasoning

Why do you think the Australian iodine story is better for third lead when compared with the Buffalo hotel story? I didn't understand the change, but perhaps I'm simply missing something? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 23:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think one of the problems with the iodine story is the "news event" was the release of a report. That is, nothing really happened. Whereas the Buffalo story covered a local event - a meeting - where stuff happened, people were interviewed, etc. The iodine story could be written differently to have more news in it, while still focusing on a phenomenon, but it would require a lot of research by an investigative reporter. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 05:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead article

The following guidelines are accepted for the lead article:

• Story should be of international interest.
• Current news.
• Must include a relevant image.
• Must be published.

A Wikinews logo is not particularly relevant. Even a flag is a better choice. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 16:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Only this: The article you selected is no more suitable, perhaps less so, than the article it replaced. Arbitrary removal of lead articles appears to be an issue in your Wikinews behaviour. Please do not attempt to push an agenda on the main page. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 00:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no discussion section which supports your contention. Do not give me instructions, and maintain civility please. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 01:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are rude. Expect to be responded to in kind.

You also appear to be stalking User:DragonFire's changes to the main page. His breaking news topic was in place for 1:20 when you replaced with a non-urgent and far less international story, without a relevant image. Since it appears you are not aware of the lead article conventions, I explained them on your talk page as I have also done for others previously. I strongly encourage you to learn to work well with others; it is what Wikinews is about. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 03:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - joint statement

Hi International... I've started a draft joint statement as part of the dispute resolution process. Please take a look.... - Borofkin 23:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Abu Grahib prison image

The image on Wikipedia is probably available online from a government website. If you can find the source on a government website, then it would be possible to upload it to Commons. If it is on commons, it can be used on Wikinews just by inserting the usual image tag. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 21:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

International, we are cut from the same cloth. I really appreciate the work you do on Wikinews, and you've been extremely beneficial to the project in my opinion. Your opinions are extremely valuable, too. However, though I generally agree with your opinions, your personal attacks on User:DragonFire1024 are simply unacceptable. I understand that the situation can be stressful, especially when other users have the exactly opposing viewpoint from you. But this is not okay. You need to respect the opinions and viewpoints of everyone on this wiki, including Jason. Maybe he's wrong, and maybe you're wrong. It could be that neither of you are wrong. It doesn't matter. Personal attacks are simply unacceptable.

Please. Please. Don't stoop to the level of a troll. You're an intelligent person. Please represent that accordingly. ironiridis 05:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

MrM and RfAr

I have listed the issues with Mrmiscellanious for arbitration as the WN:DISPUTE process is pointless at this stage, due to MrM having no interest in responding- Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now added my name as an involved party. Neutralizer 14:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

sources

You should be aware that Common Dreams is a PAC, and is not generally considered to be a reliable source (though I read there all the time.) - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 18:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

<nod> Thanks! - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 18:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Your request for arbitration has been accepted. Please visit Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious/Evidence and begin adding evidence. --Chiacomo ^(talk) 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi International. I saw your opposition to my RfA which officially passed today. I was wondering if you had any suggestions or ideas that would make me a better admin for the community as a whole. I would really appreciate your feedback. Thanks! :) irid:t 19:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In the future...

Direct all your future attacks, slingings and four-year-old mouthing to User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Sludge! Really, I'm inviting you to! After all, it belongs there. Play nice, now. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Quote

I see nothing in the WN article that denotes any quote marks whatsoever. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 00:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bad

That would be your opinion. My statement, as written, says literally that you don't know all the facts, and that your POV is simply POV, not fact. In other words, your opinion of the situation is irrelavent; the title of that article is factual. irid:t 14:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If you found my comment unnecessarily unkind, you have my apologies. I was trying to leave my apartment and get that redirect mess fixed. I resorted to being blunt rather than being polite. Nevertheless, my comment was intended to be taken literally; in this situation, your opinion about how many centrifuges Iran has doesn't matter. We're reporting on the facts of the situation, not speculation. irid:t 14:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

image

Can you please source this image? Image:Claimedwmdlab.jpg. Please remember to tag all images. In addition please upload all public domain images to commons:special:upload in future. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My develop vote on the Iraqi bioweapons article

Concerning this version of the article, which was current when I voted, I noted the following problems:

• Title of article was simply way too long
• This is a run-on sentence:

On May 27, 2003, two days before President Bush made public statements on these trailers,
asserting that "We have found the weapons of mass destruction" and the CIA published their
whitepaper detailing how these trailers were allegedly used to produce biological weapons,
a fact-finding group comprised of U.S. and British civilian experts that investigated the
labs concluded unanimously that these had nothing to do with biological weapons production
and relayed their results back to Washington, according to the Washington Post.

• "The Washington Post" is inconsistently capitalized ("the" vs "The") and italicized.
• The paragraph beginning with "The Iraq Survey Group reported in September 2004" has a stray quote mark, or is missing one.
• Dates are formed inconsistently, some with numeric suffixes ("24th" vs "24"), some with commas and some without ("May 24th, 2003" vs "May 24th 2003").
• The last source does not properly use the source template.

These are all things I noted in a brief survey of the article. They stood out to me as cosmetic problems. They don't directly apply to MrM's objections, however, a vote for publish versus develop was called, and I felt this article needed continued development. I didn't have time to make the changes myself; I would have if I wasn't at my day job at the time. irid:t 08:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

RE

Then, don't give me anything to be defensive about. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for interview from candidate for US senate

Hi International... I'm bringing this to your attention because you have recently contributed to an article related to US politics. There is a request for interview up from Pete Ashdown, a candidate for the US Senate. Any Wikinews contributor is welcome to conduct the interview, if they think it is worthwhile. There is a discussion area on the request an interview page. I thought you may be interested.... - Borofkin 00:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin. alert.

I disput Messedrocker:s block and see it as missuse of admin. priviledges. To mix frienship and administrative action is a serious abuse. There is no wrongdoing from my side. international 01:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Hi International, you have been blocked for 24 hours and 1 minute for violation of etiquette as well. I (and other individuals) agree that you have not been working peacefully towards a resolution -- rather you've been "playing the blame game" so to speak. Feel free to come back after the block expires with etiquette and politeness in mind. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I want a better explanation. Look again at my edits, in good faith and refering to talk. Mrm just edited without any comments. I urge you to in detail explain what other I should done. Mrm started to use words like "Way to be mature" "If you want to throw crap at readers" "What a childish way", I dont think I shall be punished for reporting this on admin alert or what? What is my provocation? And who are the other individuals you referin to?

international 02:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I advise other administrators to look at this!

international 02:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no provocation or attack from my side! international 02:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The diff:s and their times

As I see it all relevant edits in this case following. (Maybe small misstakes due to complicated and timeconsuming editing to prove my innocense) Was it my responsibility to present this?

00:30, 1 May 2006 Boud edit (wikipediapars|Movement to impeach George W. Bush)

16:40, 1 May 2006 Boud edit in (wikipedia background info: Rationales to impeach George W. Bush; public perception of bush)

22:36, 1 May 2006 Mrm:s first edit removed wikipar arguing (We shouldn't be promoting disputed articles on WP.)

22:39, 1 May 2006 My first rev my reason (Never heard of this policy, link is usefull)

00:22, 2 May 2006 TALK Boud arguing on TALK. <-------------

00:25, 2 May 2006 Bawolff edit the wikipar (consolidate wikipear box)

00:28, 2 May 2006 mrms second edit Changed Rationales to impeach George W. Bush to w:George W. Bush. mrm: (We shouldn't be promoting disputed articles on WP.)

00:33, 2 May 2006 my rev my reason (rev to Bawolff ver, see Boud argumentation on talk)

00:35, 2 May 2006 mrm revert mrm: (Reverted edit(s) by International (talk) to last version by Mrmiscellanious)

00:36, 2 May 2006 my 3:rd and last revert my argument: (rev see talk). <------------

00:37, 2 May 2006 mrms first edit on TALKpage. <------------

00:38, 2 May 2006 mrm second edit on TALKpage including a personal attack.

00:45, 2 May 2006 my response on TALKpage including "I think you shall lover your personalatack mode quite a lot"

00:46, 2 May 2006 mrm third edit on TALKpage inlkuding more harsh language and personal attacks.

00:57, 2 May 2006 my complain on WN:alert (first revision)

Note: Boud Bawolff and me international have activly edit the disputed text and Karen did not oppose the disputed part wile editing somthing different. I consider that a consencus mrm edited against and I have some whight in my reverts therby: no waring from my side. And Changing Rationales to impeach George W. Bush to w:George W. Bush looks like povpushing.

international 12:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Whats my wrongdoing?

international 02:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You should discuss his edit rather than reverting it. It never hurts to take a few deep breaths and restate your position on the talk page. I realise that MrM doesn't do this either - that is no excuse. You should be as patient and as nice as you possibly can. That is the spirit of Wikinews:Etiquette. - Borofkin 03:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mrm edit and dont use talk untill it is a conflict. Boud argumented against mrm and I refered to it. Mrm is the user who should use talk in this case befor he edit the article. He is impossible to communicat with by some tactics he use. Look at his disputed items, which I for one time adressed all, they are not all made to improve the article but a kind of blackmail, edit as I tell you or I keep the article in develop. dispute backgroundsinfo??? Anyway he tag it and wait, keep articles he dont like in develop. That is disruptive for wikinews.

There was 3 reverts from my side, there was no talk from mrm:s side. Baud had clearly argumented against mrms first edit but mrm still reverted. After my 3:rd edit I stopped. mrm taged article. I complied on adminalert. Thats the story. I still wonder what I did wrong?

Mrms new tactic 3revert and a tag as povpushing should be looked at insted.

international 03:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Messedrocker

"Violation of etiquette - he is as guilty as Mrmiscellanious in terms of provoking users" Blocklog

"Note that I have also blocked International for violation of the etiquette as well (he did just as wrong) for 24 hours (and one minute)." written under Personal Attacks on WN:ALERT

"Hi International, you have been blocked for 24 hours and 1 minute for violation of etiquette as well. I (and other individuals) agree that you have not been working peacefully towards a resolution -- rather you've been "playing the blame game" so to speak. Feel free to come back after the block expires with etiquette and politeness in mind."

These are not a correct descriptions of what happened and administrator Messedrocker:s block will be discussed!