User talk:Adambro/Archive 4

WN:TO-DO

I have started WN:TO-DO as a place to list what should be daily or weekly points to check for regular contributors. Some parts are admin-only (e.g. Archiving) but others are things that anyone can get involved with. Feel free to add additional points and spread the word about this shortcut to get people helping do Wikignome tasks. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

WN:A

Sorry about that, I archived a bunch of old stuff at once and archived the latest RfA with it, next time I'll leave the latest closed one up for a while first. Thanks for the note, Cirt - (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving drive

Please see WN:AAA if you would like to help by arcivning just ten articles a day per admin as part of the latest archiving drive. Anonymous101 :) 20:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Please make sure you follow WN:ACHIVE when archiving. Anonymous101 :) 20:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If I've made a mistake then it would be helpful if you'd highlight what I actually did incorrectly. Adambro - (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My RFA

I am, once again, putting myself up for Rfa. I would appriciate it if you could stop by My RFA and vote. Wheter support or oppose I would appriciate your vote to avoid another situation of having too few votes.-Ryan524 (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

FYI, Brianmc has gone to WN:DISPUTE over the Mormon un-speedy-keeping issue. I suggest you comment there Anonymous101 :) 18:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of this. Adambro (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Anonymous101 :) 18:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not have the authority to assert that an OTRS volunteer has broken Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality policy with regards to OTRS emails. I would suggest you revert and allow the Communications Committee, who do have the authority to make such decisions, to sort out the issue. As I have told you before, on Wikinews:Deletion requests, you should cease the public assertions of wrongdoing until they have been proven and accepted by those who control and handle issues with the system. Daniel (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No I won't be reverting. The information has been obtained from an OTRS ticket which I'm pretty sure are meant to be kept confidential, as such it has been obtained against WMF rules, I don't need the Communications Committee to assist me there. I never intended in my nomination of the article for deletion to suggest that Brianmc had in any way broke OTRS rules and it is unfortunate that this was misinterpreted. However, it has since been highlighted that Brianmc did release the ticket to Cirt and he subsequently used information from it in writing the article. As such it is now clear that OTRS rules were broken here. Adambro (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, if you think content has been added improperly and based on a violation of OTRS rules, bring it up on the mailing list. You are hardly neutral enough to be making a decision on this. I'm struggling to understand why you persist in making an issue out of this on-wiki when it could be dealt with far more effectively through the appropriate channels. Could you please approach ComCom and have them decide if a breach has occured rather than continuing to assert that it has been? Daniel (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I "persist in making an issue out of this on-wiki" because it is here on Wikinews that the information has been pubkished. The evidence I've provided is clear, unless anyone is going to suggest otherwise I'm not going to sway from my position that OTRS rules have been broken. I'm not sure what makes me not "neutral enough to be making a decision on this". I will look into at raising this with ComCom since you insist. Adambro (talk) 08:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now sent an email to ComCom regarding this. Adambro (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

De-adminship

As per custom, I am formally letting you know there is now a discussion to remove your admin rights. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Ive blocked you for a 3rr breach, for 12 hrs. If you want to comment on your de-admining then please post comments here, which i will copy over. --MarkTalk to me 13:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Blocking me now is inappropriate as it follows the start of a request to remove my admin rights, a punishment which far outweighs that of a 12 hour block. In these circumstances it is reasonable for me to be unblocked to enable me to comment on any points raised in that process. I have already accepted that my reverting was ill-judged and stopped in response to warnings instead awaiting the response, if any, from ComCom. Blocks are generally supposed to prevent disruption however since I have long stopped the reverting and these special circumstances, I suggest this punitive block is not appropriate. I have also explained why I consider the seriousness of the issue merits the removal of the information but have now accepted, by stopping reverting, that others disagree. This block is not necessary. It is obvious from the de-adminship request that others are not happy with my behaviour and their comments there will have a much greater impact on my future behaviour than a block which only serves to slow the resolution of this issue and prevents me from continuing contributing constructively in the mean time. }}

I request the removal of my admin rights on this Wiki. Adambro (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would reconsider and perhaps apply for reinstatement. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

Will you please accept your nomination on WN:A. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

WN:DR

Thanks for updating the Deletion history box at the top of the article's talk page. Cirt (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WN:DISPUTE

I realise you may no longer be interested in this, but nonetheless, you've stated: "I've also raised concerns about his blocking of a user for, if I recall, multiple instances of 1 minute which he justified with something along the lines of it making the user look bad by having a long block log." I have reviewed the block log and found these blocks, but I haven't found any reasons. Where did Brianmc say what you call "something along the lines of it making the user look bad by having a long block log"? Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

See here for the comments about this. If I recall, the "trolling" remark was in response to an image this user uploaded to WN which appeared to be having a little dig at WN. I think it was Alexa wkinews.png. Adambro (talk) 11:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Bulletin

Here is the latest Wikinews bulletin. Enjoy!

About the Wikinews Bulletin The Wikinews Bulletin is a free internal newsletter for members of the Wikinews community. The newsletter is "staffed" by several editors, who produce the (more or less) fortnightly publication. Don't hesitate to join our team, or leave us a tip. The publication has produced nine issues.

Anonymous101 :) 12:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Leila Monaghan attributions

Have added, many thanks! Leila Monaghan (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Usage note w:euro

Hi Adam. This is a usage note, which I hope you can help spread as there is still wide confusion about the euro. There is a natural tendency to capitalize the euro, probably because it is not preceded by a country name. It is just like the United States dollar. The dollar is not capitalized and styling the euro, the European euro, is rather redundant. However, what is even less commonly realized, is that the plural of euro is euro. Given the number of European languages there are some issues as noted at linguistic issues concerning the euro, but the official ruling is that it is "euro" both in singular and plural. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

No prosecution for UK minor who called Scientology a 'cult'

Thank you very much for the kind words. I am not sure but I think that both Mark Bunker and Tory Christman may be attending the London protests in July, so that would certainly be quite an interesting event to cover firsthand. And yes I agree with you that after the recent Freedom of speech-related incidents that there could quite possibly be a higher turnout for the June protest, especially in London. As for Scientology articles, yes, I have been trying to only cover the really newsworthy stuff of late, and the way I have been measuring that is by analyzing coverage in secondary sources and press/news/media prior to writing an article on something - though OR is always good too. Thanks again, Cirt (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Police arrest two over Exeter bomb explosion

Thanks for getting the related news added to that story while I was away. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

there should be a sportswiki for the wikimedia foundation

tell immywales that. Sonicthehedgehog9000 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you understand the difference...

Between a discussion about a topic with a user, and a discussion about a topic within the community.

It's clear that, years after you and I first butted heads regarding editing history, you still seem to have no idea how this affects things. You still act as though you're on a campaign to give Commons control over all non-text content on WMF projects. And in my opinion you still have no clue as to what journalism is about. These are personal issues between us.

Likewise, the water cooler discussion is about templates, licensure, etc. It's not about the way people use each other's talk pages, or communicate within the community. Those two words have the same root, you know, at least in English. - Amgine | ^t 18:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Usersubpages

I suppose... I am going to move them to my own wiki... --Remi (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Now. All the links are to news or the sort of thing that could be considered news. I am not a big fan of summarizing or rewording (more power to those who are). I find news fascinating and informative and I would like to share with others somehow. --Remi (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

News links that were in subpages

How might it be appropriate to integrate such links into a more open namespace? --Remi (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

the whole image fair use and edp dispute

Dear Adambro, I sincerely feel that your concept of "acceptable free license" is so deeply rooted in practices at Commons/Wikipedia, that you are unable to see the differences as they pertain to Wikinews. I know that your deepest desire is for Wikinews to be so free that it can be copied by anyone for any reason, images and all. But since we already allow for fair-use images (pretty much like Wikipedia), those who copy and repost our articles already have to treat images differently than the cc-by license we use here. There should not be a "great leap" to include cc-by-nc-nd, cc-nc-sa, etc. As long as we can legally use them, I don't see why we shouldn't. As I have pointed out, the foundation policy affords us the opportunity to write a project-specific EDP to cover this. As I know you are sincere in your argument (lest I just convinced you), I do suggest that you raise the point at a foundation level. Are you on the foundation-l mailing list? This would be a good place to vet this and get opinions from people that are not Wikinewsies, but rather overall-Wikimedians. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne story

It's not a hoax. It's original reporting. --BruceKinnaird (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanking alt main pages

Please do not blank the main page proposals. They serve as interesting and occasionally useful historical pages. A number of them could easily be revived as new proposals. I fail to see the harm them showing as using the main page templates casues. If you think they should disappear, please file a DR or at least discuss it on the water cooler. Thanks.--Cspurrier (talk) 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I've only blanked them it is perfectly possible for people to link to old revisions to show what they look like and discuss them. I would doubt that in most cases that these will be useful and so don't consider it worth them including current templates and showing up as such. One problem is that whenever any of these templates are changed the server has to go through each page which includes it and update these when there isn't really any point. It also avoids these pages appearing in various inappropriate categories. Adambro (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly unusal step to take. If they were showing up where they shouldn't, then I believe "noinclude" could have been used. This issue has been raised at WN:AAA, fyi. Sidenote: as your are no longer an admin, you should not be closing DRs, though I second your decision on the one that you did close. --SVTCobra 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Adambro: I remember the issue of which you refer to -- the problem of template inclusion -- being raised on enwp many years ago, but I just wanted to let you know that your understanding of the problem is incorrect and the technical basis for the issue has since been fixed in MediaWiki. The concerns were raised about the behaviour of much older MediaWiki versions where changes in a template that was subsequently transcluded into many others would cause a whole chain of cache flushes, producing a potential avenue for a DDoS attack. In addition, this never referred to simple pages that had templates transcluded within them, and were not (widely) transcluded elsewhere. Regardless, however, these days it no longer causes a chain of cache flushes to occur, as MediaWiki has moved on a bit, so it now isn't anything to worry about. There isn't any need to go around blanking pages, nor worrying about what is listed under "What links here". If you would be so kind as to revert the userspace blanking you have undertaken, I should be most grateful, as although your intentions were clearly for the greatest good, they are based on a misunderstanding and amount to actions that are construed by the community as vandalism. Thank you, --NicholasTurnbull (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: I do not consider the edits constructive. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:AntiWarrally2Portland2006.jpg

Do you think it is appropriate to add a template saying that the file is "eligible for speedy deletion" when it has just been kept in a dr? Anonymous101 :) 17:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't my intention and as you note the speedy deletion bit is obviously inappropriate but the issue of a lack of a rationale is valid. Adambro (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:3 Servicemen.jpg

I transferred to Commons, but missed the pesky little -nd, so it is eligble for speedy there. (I thought the bot would warn me). I trust you can handle it there. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I've deleted it now. Regards. Adambro (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Recent image uploads

Moved to User talk:Blood Red Sandman

Which username?

Moved to User talk:Emesee

Image:Portal Football Banner.png

Moved to User talk:Celticfan383

Low resolution

Have you tagged the right page Image:A Swarm of Angels.png? This already is low-res. Is there a higher res version elsewhere? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Commentary template

I noticed you decided to use my TK talk icon for the commentary template. Thanks for finding it and using it! I've created a different image that might more suit Wikinews and it can be found here. If you like it, feel free to use it in the template. Thanks -- Tkgd2007 (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Spain defeat Germany to win Euro 2008

This is not the proper title. It should be Euro 2008: Germany vs. Spain. And there should be a template with math facts. Kingjeff (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

i dont like you for doing this

why? --OfficerLeRoy (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Wikinews:Water cooler is for discussing issues directly concerning the running of the Wikinews project not for debating current events. Adambro (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to step in before I go you can start that discussion on the comments page for the latest article on Mugabe. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions

Moved to User talk:SVTCobra

Wikinews Bulletin delivery

About the Wikinews Bulletin The Wikinews Bulletin is a free internal newsletter for members of the Wikinews community. The newsletter is "staffed" by several editors, who produce the (more or less) fortnightly publication. Don't hesitate to join our team, or leave us a tip. The publication has produced nine issues.

WN:DR and WN:SD

Thanks for the comment about being able to speedy delete those empty categories. Cirt (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Concerned-mom

I am reluctant to speedily delete this userpage (though I agree that userpages should not be used for advertising/spam) in light of Churchofscientologyint (talk · contribs)'s userpage which was deleted and then subsequently restored after discussion as a "corporate representative". What are your thoughts? Cirt (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted by Anonymous101 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is very famous person —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsingondal (talk • contribs) 05:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose voting

Go check the talk page again; I've responded to one of your allegations. Mike Halterman (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Striking out/editing other users' comments

Please do not edit other users' comments, as you did at Wikinews:Deletion requests, here [1]. Respectfully, it would be better instead to ask that user to adjust their particular comment if you feel that a change is needed, as opposed to editing someone else's comments yourself. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its a little bit of a stretch to say that striking "Delete as nom" constitutes editing of other users' comments to merit such a warning. Adambro (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a warning, it is a request/comment from me to you. My apologies if it came across as a warning, sorry about that, was not my intention. Cirt (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Image for speedy

I put this up as a speedy a few days ago but no one looked at it yet - would appreciate it if you would: Image:080713 let IraqiNationalList ProtectElections.jpg. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

I'm the Mind's Eye a relativly new editor here and noticed this prepared article, Wikinews:Story preparation/Guns N' Roses Releases Chinese Democracy; I wasn't sure if this really would classify as news. I did a wikinews search and there aren't really any articles like this. Just wondering, The Mind's Eye (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

FlaggedRevs

If you have not already seen this, please look, comment, and vote both here and on bugzilla. Further assistance such as contact information for Google would be a very useful detail to share and help in petitioning for a listing in their news index. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

One Question

Why do you bother? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.150.47 (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom

At WN:RfAR I left a comment, hope this is useful. --Kalspring (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Army of Islam - Al Jazeera.jpg

Hi Adam, could you please expound on the fair-use of this image that you uploaded a long time ago. I don't want break the archive. --SVTCobra 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)