User talk:Blood Red Sandman/Archive 4

Celebrity gossip...


While I don't dispute the content of the change, that's a pretty substantial policy statement which, I think, should be approved by the community first. - Amgine | t 01:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

*grumbles* Well, give it 'till morning then. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 01:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

About Thekohser


Have you had any success in communicating with a Bureaucrat about my situation? -- Thekohser (using (talk) 14:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC))Reply

Given the amount of indulgence he is asking for, I disappointed with this user's impatience. Unblock requests belong on the user page, and users who offer to help should not be followed to their talk pages by blocked users. Users do take time off now and again, and a wiki pro should not need to be reminded (a) to look at a calendar to see it is a public holiday in several countries or (b) that admins do know how to watchlist requests they are working on.

Anyway, I hear that the user is unblocked for now, and I hope that future impatience does not spill over onto the website.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)Reply



Will add, thanks. WackyWacetalk 20:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

NP Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)Reply



Ah, sorry about that—I was completely in wrong. It won't happen again. Regards, WackyWacetalk 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'll bear that in mind in the future :) WackyWacetalk 15:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Collapsible on en.WN


I'd *really* like collapsible sources, but it still would not resolve the TOC entrants. Perhaps a sources subpage, transcluded within a template which creates #Title:Sources for the TOC? - Amgine | t 16:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

BTW: when I went to plagiarize some of the collapsible templates, the css on en.WN is organized differently. Perhaps someone could clean up commons.css to be more obvious/organized? - Amgine | t 16:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

<laughs> Ok, ok, I won't bug you to do it. But if I find the .css elements necessary, would you be willing to add them to MediaWiki:common.css? - Amgine | t 16:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
With alfredo sauce. - Amgine | t 16:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply



Not entirely sure what happened there, I don't know how I overrode your comment. BTW, The IP forgot to log on, so I left them a message on User talk:Shinkolobwe, if you want to give 'em a warning there. Regards, WackyWacetalk 18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing. Will point them at it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your comment. I agree with it and left my answer there. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Article on plane crash


Re Nine dead after small plane crashes in New Zealand; as you commented on the lack of sources for one statement, would you please take another look at the article, which has the sources now Hugo99 (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can't blame EzPR!


Did anyone file a bug report with Bawolff when {{Urgent review}} was created? (I know you didn't mean anything by the "tut, tut"). --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, and I know Bawolff will see it as mere sillyness too. I don't know is the honest answer; I think everyone has overlooked it. I remember if you added the template to say you were reviewing it never used to work with that either. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
My memory may not be accurate, but I think that template works now. It is kind of hard to test these things without keeping an up-to-date local mirror of the entire Wikinews database, but I will try {{Under review}} on a real article soon just to see. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I just added Urgent review. Under review should (have always) worked. You can test easy peer review by adding {{nopublish}} to an article before hand, which should stop it from appearing on twitter, rss, main page etc when published. Cheers. Bawolff 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: San Bruno Fire


Hey there. I am actually one of the editors from en.Wiki, click my username on my sig for the link to my en.Wiki userpage. Been following the story all night on Twitter and via KPIX's website, but I actually live in Virginia near DC. The source I was refering to was this one. I didn't see any sources elsewhere on the page, so I didn't add it. I take it they are in the <ref> brackets like on en.Wiki. I can add the source to the section now if you like or you can, whichever works best for you. Take Care...Neutralhomer (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Pope Benedict article


Hi, can you help me with creating an article about Pope Benedict XVI leaving the United Kingdom after his papal visit to the country? Thanks --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 15:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've got the outline for the article set up. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 18:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Can you please help? I'd be really grateful if you could do that. Thanks --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 19:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the Block


Thanks for blocking that troll, I have a feeling that someone who knows my username is messing around on here. red-thunder. 21:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I doubt they'll still be interested in another week. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your block of EdwardsBot


I put a note here a few weeks ago about the bot being blocked. No hard feelings. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re: Careful with the reviewer bit


Hmm, if its a gadget I'm using, I'm not sure what it is. I'll try and be a bit more careful. Thanks for nominating the BP article, I'll try and reword that AP statement (which, upon reflection, is far too long) in my sandbox. Regards, Wackywacedictaphone 18:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Belgian Eurovision singer Fud Leclerc dies at age 86


A null edit got this out of Articles mispublished, and caused it to show up as having been sighted by you after all. (Yes, I did mention this to Bawolff.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I hadn't even realised there was a problem (became distracted and forgot to purge main page). I had something similar the other day - had to unsight and resight. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply



Ta. Bencherlite (talk) 16:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your block of Pathoschild


You do know that Pathoschild is a steward, right? He's not a bot... J.delanoy (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Attempted unblocking of User:Greg L


Your 18:14, 25 Sept. post quotes that you unblocked me (User:Greg L). Yet, when I tried to say “thanks” there, a block notice quoted your entry where you wrote “unblocked Greg L” but at the top advises that “This user is currently blocked.”

Brian at AAA seems to confuse challenging his position on matters with “distruption”. That is a fallacious notion; the very reason for getting an uninvolved Crat involved is—people being people—safeguards in the form of procedures to avoid this sort of thing are supposed to be abided by. As an involved Crat, Brian’s objectivity is seriously in question here. Greg L 21:03, 25 September 2010

Lemme look at fixing that. Sounds like an IP block is still applied. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  Done should be fixed now. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it was an I.P. block. Normally I hail from Spokane WA but am on the road in Chicago staying at a B&B to conduct a medical trial.

I hope that someone can give Brian a “knock knock” and inform him that edit warring is disruption. Bad-faith editing is distruption. Personal attacks are. But to-the-point, on-topic debate on a subject—even if it is vigorous debate on an issue He™© disagrees with—is never disruption.

Tony1 and I both have extensive, years-long experience at Wikipedia MOSNUM and MOS. I can’t help it if that threatens Brian; he can dismount from his high horse as he blocks the sunlight for the *little people* down below who are trying to weigh in at a venue where thoughts are shared and vigorous debate is the norm. I’m going to state just that much on Style Guide, where Brian professed “relief” that I “de-involved” myself. While it might be nice if he could chose who is “involved”, I’m not so sure that’s the way things work—even if this project wasn’t founded by Jimbo.

Please advise as to conduct expected at this project; Brian’s behavior suggests it might work very differently from Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 21:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oh. Looking above, I see I forget to add even a simple “thanks.” Indeed, than you very much for intervening and reversing that block. As I mentioned, both Tony and I have years of experience on en.WP:MOS and MOSNUM. Tony has been on Wikipedia for many years and the only blocks he has received there were all in error. My only blocks have been for lipping off to admins. Indeed, I have no patience for what I view as corrupt authority or authority-gone-berserk; ergo, a block from Brian in a matter of hours—not for personal attacks but for “trolling” (aka: weighing in like this at Style Guide) without first having earned the right to do so in Brian’s eyes. That is really amazing behavior. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • You're very welcome. I hope you don't mind if I bow out of the drama for the time being and avoid commenting on the various other comments you've left; as Amgine has pointed out, I've requested that he try to respond and hopefuly the two of you will go somewhere constructive with that. I may well find myself back involved in this later, but at present I'd like to sit back and take a break from it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I completely understand. Wikinews is a small community and just a few editors “from the *Big City*” can make waves. The smaller things are at the outset, the greater is the seeming magnitude of change. Writing articles on Wiki-anything is a labor of love by volunteer contributors; we certainly can’t be making Brian feel like contributing here is no longer an enjoyable hobby. But neither can we allow newcomers who are also desirous of becoming part of the community feel like they are unwelcome by being marginalized and told they haven’t earned an entitlement to weigh in at Style Guide. I’m sure things will settle out soon enough as editors take the measure of each other and the realities of the situation sink in for some who have labored mightily here for a long time. Greg L (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Do you accept ...?


... this nom: Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions#Blood_Red_Sandman. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)Reply



For the nom and promotion! Good luck in your RFB! Tyrol5 (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your post


Hi, thanks for your post on my talk page. I've got to say that the more I examine what is happening at WN, the sadder it gets. Tony1 (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category renaming


Hello Blood Red Sandman! I'd like to rename the following categories: Category:North-West Frontier Province and Category:Northern Areas into Category:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Category:Gilgit-Baltistan as you can see here and here that the names of both places have changed long ago. These categories were created before the name changes took place. Cheers - Rana (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're going to need a consensus to change those, based on something more reliable than Wikipedia. Head to the WC (and don't forget to flush). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply



Hi Blood! Could you please review (and publish :P) my Copiapó article before it is 23:00 UTC, so I don't have to update it yet again? It starts with the most recent information, and then it has some background information, and the list of the miners. Please! :-) --Diego Grez return fire 22:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, was far too tired to do anything remotely taxing last night. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply



I think it's probably time to close Bobby's RFReviewer. Two opposes and no discussion in two days (It may seem like I'm admin shopping here (or whatever they call it at en.wp), but BarkingFish chastised me for my non-admin closures.) Thanks, Tyrol5 (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, Diego got it (forgot he was an admin!). Tyrol5 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Heh! No problem anyway. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lead 1


Ah, sorry about that, I hadn't noticed it was republished, and thought it was a new article. Regards, Wackywacedictaphone 21:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)Reply



Hi, I Already requested a bot flag, Please Unblock my robot account Mjbmr Talk 19:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked. Further comments on your talkpage, Mjbrmr. --Diego Grez return fire 19:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply



I will be afk for the next week. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 09:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Can you check my bot flag request before you go, i need to my bot here, Thank you Mjbmr Talk 09:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You'll have to wait at least until October 27 before your request is approved or rejected. Diego Grez return fire 14:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Allright, but i don't know how you decide to approve or reject, bcuz i have a little edits here, you are so strict, you know fawikinews is new & needs to run an internal robot and you denied me, but you run your bot there safely Mjbmr Talk 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding Mjbmr. We know fa.wikinews is new &c, but the problem is that our policies clearly state that votes last for seven days, and not just two days. Please be patient, the flag will be granted... Diego Grez return fire 16:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
No Problem Mjbmr Talk 17:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)



For the quick publish on the Shuttle Discovery article, I was hoping to get that out there quick. Article must have been at the right place at the right time! Tyrol5 (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, you got lucky with me being around and free at the time. No problem. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hiding revisions?


Hiding revisions from page history for copyright infringement seems a bit harsh unless the Foundation gets a DMCA takedown request. Is it normal practice now? (I never saw it happen at the other place - we just waited 7 days for an admin to blow away the whole thing.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's kinda normal practise. Let me explain: I dunno if you remember/were around, but we used to force articles to be rewritten one a new page (at Articlename/temp) so the copyvio could be deleted and the rewrite moved over the top. That was certainly normal/correct practise. Now, though, RevDel means such is not needed and I believe that is why such instructions are gone from the copyvio template. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't know that RevDel was a new feature. {{copyvio}} still insists on the Temp sub-page (also the practice at The Other Place). So, perhaps you (or someone) can fix that, and I will remember to delete revisions in future. --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  •   Done (though as I noted in my summary, my text could use much improvement). A quick check of the documentation at The Other Place (lazily instead of meta since I know the shortcut :p) reveals it was introduced there in 2010; prolly same time as everywhere. Since we can 'selectively clean' I wonder if we need to delete within 24 hours anymore? We can just purge the vio and then delete more leisurely through other parts of the deletion process. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Three of my thoughts (for when we get around to proposing this at water cooler)

  1. The selective clean should be by an independent reviewer, unless it is a case of no doubt, (as leaving the history up for up to 24 h for independent comment is ok by me for grey areas)
  2. The cleaned article should probably be a three day prod, and the banner could be a more mellow orange rather than angry red
  3. The template could have a parameter ("cleaned=yes") that would automatically list the article as requiring RevDel at WN:AAA, until it is cleaned.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

(Just thought i'd inject my personal opinion here). I personally think revdel is used too much (by everyone, not you specifically), and should only be used when absolutely necessary. If no one complains about the copyvio, I don't understand whats wrong with the old procedure imho. Bawolff 00:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's more complex and confuses the newbies (yes, I can recall confuddled newbies not knowing where to try a rewrite). In this case, why not RevDel? It's exactly the same procedure, just without confusing folk with the temp page. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I don't have chapter and verse, but in the absence of guidelines, a few months ago someone posted a list of half a dozen dos and don'ts. Among the don'ts was external links - I love deleting spammy links - but I love posting links myself (though this is the first time I linked, albeit unknowingly, to a notorious troll.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm. That seems counterproductive - if I'm challenged to back up factual statements I make in an argument (as I have been) I would use an external link to do so. Comments: has to be very free, yadda yadda. Maybe we should draw up proper guidelines. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply



Do you believe Hong Kong flu kills six in Japan‎ is too short to be published per the style guide. It says three paragraphs, and this is about 4 different sentences. Nascar1996 00:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's a borderline case. I've long held that one sentence doesn't make a paragraph. Yours has four paras, two of which are single sentences. Does that count the same as three two-sentence paragraphs (and if so, should that count to pass?). I must say, with our output low I'd prolly call in favour of publish. Borderline cases should generally be allowed through, in my mind. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Okay, thanks. Now I'm starting to say if it is even newworthy on this. I say many has died from the flu other places and you don't see it on the news. So it or is it not. I say not. Nascar1996 00:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
It depends. The incidence strikes me as unusually high compared for one area; one hospital if I read it right. I rather suspect this is fairly major news in Japan. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
So if everything else is good publish it? Nascar1996 00:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'd say so, yeah. But, I do understand why you were unsure. Happy editing! It's good to see you on the wiki again. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is better to ask someone more familiar to this wiki for help, such as yourself. Thanks, I'm glad to be back and editing more than ever. Nascar1996 01:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Will you tell me how I could imporve to admin status. I know it may still be a while, but I'm wanting to start early. I've been on Wikipedia for a year and a couple of weeks, and still no adminship. I know I trustworthy, but I know I'm not experienced yet. Please, if you can, tell me how I can impove on editing Wikinews. Thanks, Nascar1996 23:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not ignoring you. I'll give some feedback when I have more time, hopefully in a few hours. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • I would focus some more time outside of mainspace. Now, mainspace is our priority of course, but seeing you contributing thoughtfully to discussions about policy and whatnot tends to make people value your judgement. I'd love to see you also branch out into covering non-NASCAR topics more; not just because I want to steal your soul to write tirelessly (well, that too :p) but also because I feel working on a range of topics will help you feel confident when dealing with sitewide issues. You can assess what kind of impact things may have on reporting. (To be clear, I love that we have someone covering the sport.) I'm tired, and my prose is not the best right now, so if this isn't very clear yell and I'll rewrite. I'll also try to think of more stuff when I'm a bit more awake. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Okay thanks. Nascar1996 17:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Reply



Blood Red Sandman, it appears I noticed this issue after the fact. Did this removal get any prior community discussion, or was it a unilateral removal on the part of the individual that made this change to the local Wikinews page at MediaWiki:Gadget-HideFundraisingNotice.css? -- Cirt (talk) 05:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

We've been there done that. Giant flame war on my talk page if you're interested. It was all a big misunderstanding in the end, Philippe thought i was adding it to site css and not just gadget. Bawolff
Yes, but was this removal done prior to, and without, community input? -- Cirt (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
As far as i know there was no discussion with the community. I'll be honest most of it happened when I was away, and I just came back to the mess on my talk page, so there could of been something on irc I'm unaware of. Bawolff 06:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
RC was fairly slow at the time, and I was watching. No prior discussion. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 09:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
That lack of even an attempt at prior discussion with the community is indeed disturbing. -- Cirt (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Knee-jerk revert? I sound flippant, but that's the wiki way, isn't it? (The other place has an acronym for it: BRD, Bold. Revert, Discuss - in this case: fix, revert, flamewar). No big deal. --InfantGorilla (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

NASCAR: Edwards wins 2010 Kobalt Tools 500


Just to point out. I've raised a question on the talk page about the sourcing of one sentence. Since you're the peer-reviewer, it'd be great to get your perspective over there. --Pi zero (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I need you to come out one more time. :) Please. This will be the final time you will see me creating articles until February. (probably) Thanks for publishing a ton of my articles throughout this season. Nascar1996 00:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Double redirections policy


Hello, sorry but I didn't know that a bot with seven flags could be blocked until infinity at the fourth of one edition per day in average: I just inform you that your suppressions have let Son to dissect father's dead body & Talk:Son to dissect father's dead body in this state. JackPotte (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • I can't make sense of your first sentence, sorry. I haven't touched those redirects, so please withdraw that allegation and go get your bot approved, as required under policy. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Have to agree with BRS here; our local bot policy trumps infinity-minus-one flags elsewhere. Ideally, we don't want multiple redirects. Where articles are renamed prior to publication, the redirect should be suppressed.
Please do review the global bots policy more closely, and note our partial opt out. Also, might I suggest, you do the same on any project you run your bot on. That should avoid such issues in future - our local 'crats do work for the good of this project, under tight time constraints and, with local knowledge you probably lack. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Minor note, if said bot was a global bot, it would be allowed as it hasn't done anything not inline with the local global bot policy (unless I misunderstand something). This is of course a moot point since it is not a global bot [1]. Our partial opt out only states that global bots do not auto get a bot flag, it does not say anything about limiting what such bots can do compared to the normal global bot policy. Bawolff 03:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Understood, actually my flag was refused on fr.n because the bot should be administrator to work on the archived pages. Consequently I won't touch Special:DoubleRedirects any more. JackPotte (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikileaks cable guy


(i.e. me) needs article re-reviewed when you recover from mattress field trials. Brought in another cable and dug up good backstory to justify such. Or, that's what I think. --Brian McNeil / talk 04:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • At this near-lunch hour, still nobody had done it. Sighted. On reading the cable, I found the claim he recommended others move to London for the same superior protection Jean Charles de Menezes enjoyed to be fairly interesting. Especially, with Thomlinson's death back in the news and my ever-growing collection of criminals, with the Met probably topping the league. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks. As you likely saw, "guess who" slapped it on Lead 1 without reviewing pending changes. But, I think the little digging I did actually unearthed the name redacted from the cable. ;) If so, putting in a little extra work on the trickle coming out of Wikileaks could be a lot more fun. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • As-yet not a peep from anyone at Wikileaks. I have to say there's an obtuse amount of hipocrisy in the "stage management" of the release and, partnering with mainstream press. To my mind, that's a U-turn on many statements in the early days of Wikileaks. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I came across The common house sparrow is being decimated by the house cat in Recent Changes and decided it was worthy of deletion. However, since you had already removed {{delete}} from the article, I assume you oppose deletion - thus, I opened a deletion request, and thought you might like to comment. Wikinews:Deletion_requests#The_common_house_sparrow_is_being_decimated_by_the_house_cat Δενδοδγε τ\c 15:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hah, I always wondered what happened if two people tried to delete an article at once. Absolutely nothing, apparently. Gopher65talk 16:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
What... No explosion? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sadly no. Pi zero and I reviewed an article at the same time the other day and similarly there was no explosion:(. The only side effect was that two review templates were placed on the talk page. Blast! Gopher65talk 16:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.


Thanks, Blood Red. I have changed it. i will need to change the wikipedia User page. (mine Of course

What did I do wrong with my changes on this page? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Replied}} message on my talk page. 18:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas!


fetch·comms 22:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply



I object to your review of the article that I wrote entitled Matt Cardle wins UK X Factor final; becomes Christmas number one. You said that you failed the review because it was stale. Considering the fact that the latest information and sources are from one day ago, I do not think that this article is stale. Please explain yourself. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 15:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

The article, if you read the lede, is still about his X Factor victory. Have you re-read your own work? "Matt Cardle has been declared the winner of the seventh series of The X Factor in the United Kingdom." That was ages ago. Please rewrite it to focus on the new event, aka the news. Objection Overruled Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, I've now re-edited the article. Please review it again if you can. Thanks --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 10:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Indef blocks on IPs


Actually, some block log archaeology will reveal certain criteria for such here:

  1. Tor (deprecated, handled by MediaWiki)
  2. Shared hosting with strong evidence of private proxy for abusive purposes.
  3. Clearly identified open proxy.

Not 'hard' policy, but I've blocked hi-hundreds of proxies - all indef. It's quicker, less admin work, to unblock one which ceases to be such. However, that requires an initially clueful block application. Usually only achievable by a full nmap port scan and a check on the netblock owner and supposed usage. Our average Wikinewsie can't do that; or, if they can, don't know how to interpret the results. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sysop flag



I was wondering if it's at all possible for me to regain my sysop flag, or if I'm required to go through the RfA process again. As you probably know, I resigned under what I believe were uncontroversial circumstances early last year, and I hope to become more active once again. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 20:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bobby's RFA


It's me, admin-shopping again (or so it seems). I think it might be time for someone to close Bobby's rfa at WN:RFP. Please understand that this is a semi-awkward situation for me, being that I shouldn't technically be closing RFA's, but this particular one's been open for at least two weeks, and I'm almost certain that the chances of it passing are fairly low. Tyrol5 (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to bother you about this. Anyways, thanks for taking care of it. Tyrol5 (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Review This


This article: Russia downs Canada 5-3 to win IIHF World Junior Hockey Championship needs a review. So if you could do it as soon as possible would be great thanks. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)Reply



Just came across this article; thought it might be the sort of thing you like writing. I'm probably completely wrong though ;-). Rosa Price. "Tony Blair went to war without cabinet consent, senior mandarins say" — Daily Telegraph, January 25, 2010μ 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

(the subject that is, not the tory-pov.)



You seem to be active at the moment. Could you review Wikinews interviews Jim Hedges, U.S. Prohibition Party presidential candidate, I've been waiting for this for a while now. Thanks.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay. I think it's all been fixed. The drop in prominence since 1933 is referenced now by the Boston Globe source which states: "Family and colleagues said he was undaunted even as the party's prominence continued to slip from its heyday before the 1933 repeal of the 18th Amendment, which had banned alcoholic drinks."--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request to archive


There are currently two featured article candidates where the vote is still open despite a large amount of time passing. One of the nominations has had the vote open for over two months. The other nomination has had the vote left open for over three months. If it is possible for you to do so, could you please archive these discussions? Nobody has voted on either of them for over seven weeks. Thank you in advance --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 00:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request to review


Can you please review my article, entitled Australian town to change name to promote road safety? Thanks in advance --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the pass review Blood Red Sandman. :) --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 19:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)Reply



Could you re-review the following?

Thanks! AshwiniKalantri (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

'Partial undo'


I don't hang around to check on the reaction to my copyedits because I always expect no-one will take issue with them, so it was surprising to notice a whole paragraph of my changes reverted, not least by an editor with such a reputation for sound judgement as Blood Red Sandman. So, could you elaborate on what was objectionable? "Pleonasm"? --AdamM (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Pleonasm is redundancy in wording - text should be kept as short as possible without losing meaning, information or clarity. Now, everyone thinks their own text (I wrote the original version) is perfectly clear, but I left it unsighted to allow double-checking. The revision history shows Pi zero checked it; I trust xyr to have made sure I wasn't missing anything in undoing that part. As a semi-related side note, the man in the article was convicted and sentenced today, if that's of any interest. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply



By including a copyrighted image on a non-article page, you are simply storing up a problem for the future when the file is deleted. DrKiernan (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand your response. DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's for uploading pictures locally. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to upload images locally. According to Wikinews:Fair use, I'm not allowed to use non-free images outside of article space: "The use of non-free images outside of the main article namespace does not constitute fair use, and is not permitted". DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Were it not for the fact that you would doubtless claim I was involved, I would simply remove that as wholly inaccurate; the use is clearly defendable as fair, and, further, it should obviously apply to all content pages (mainspace, portal, category; not that portal is maintained). I might recommend turning to Amgine for further comment; I note xe's around and has read insane amounts of the case law surrounding fair use. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Allow me two relatively brief comments: The ruling copyright law for all Wikimedia Foundation Projects would be copyright law of the USA, where the corporate headquarters are located and the majority of service hardware is located; English crests are not copyrighted or copyrightable in the UK - they are instead controlled by the Law of Arms, and given by lettres patent under (ultimately) monarchical authority. - Amgine | t 22:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
It is the blazons that are not copyrighted. The original artwork is, and the file is from the US. DrKiernan (talk) 10:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)Reply



What you say about that? Memo18 (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! P.S.:I am an admin at ro.wn :) Memo18 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cool! You'll find en.wn takes a little getting used to, but I hope you'll enjoy it here. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The content from can be copied.. Memo18 (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's up to you to demonstrate that to the reviewer. Further, that doesn't negate the requirement for two independent sources, as I mentioned above. A third point is we want to generate our own content; copy-pasting should be kept to a minimum. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another request to review


Hello Blood Red Sandman. Can you please review my latest article? It is called Fire in Mumbai, India slum injures 21; leaves 2000 homeless, including 'Slumdog Millionaire' actress. Your co-operation would be much appreciated. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 22:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Reply



Don't you, er, mean Carter Ruck? — μ 18:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It redirects for a reason. :p Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
/me sees no redirect — μ 18:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
The problem was a dash, not an F. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply



Hi, thanks for passing Che Guevara's ''Motorcycle Diaries'' companion dies. I fixed an accidental red link after it was passed. Hope that's ok! Mattisse (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have checked the sources and replaced the ones that had changed. The LA Times had completely changed their piece. I went through the my article and believe everything is sourced. The direct quote "legitimate representative of the Libyan people" is sourced as are the other elements. I used "Find" to check the sources. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

a little request


While I was writing Honey bee decline spreading globally, the date changed so it is close to being stale. It's a simple article (two sources) on an uncomplicated subject. Would you mind taking a look at it, if you have time? Regards, Mattisse (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! (In checking for further info just now, I found this article listed on Google.) Mattisse (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

copyvio question


A line was removed in High school basketball star dies after making game-winning shot in overtime as unsourced:

A followup comment claimed the line a copyvio. The copyvio accusation is here

My response is here:

Sports was not a source for the article, and the link provided here does not have that wording. The source for the article was Michigan prep basketball player dies after game-winning shot from USA Today:
"Lahiri said he and other doctors want schools to make heart testing such as electrocardiograms, or EKGs, routine during physicals for school athletes. But he said the idea has been controversial because the testing is costly and can lead to false-positives that mean unnecessary additional testing."

Sports Illustrated is not a source I consulted and I don't think my wording was a copyvio of the source I used. Also, the removed information was sourced. Do you agree with me? And do you think the wording should be returned to the article. Thanks! Mattisse (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • I was already doing some stuff related to that as you typed this :p. I restored the text first, since the grounds upon which it was removed - unsourced - are untrue. I specifically remember weighing up if the guy was enough of an authority to repeat it as true, and deciding that, based on the nature of the claim, he was. I'm looking into if Google can give me any alternative possible sources of copyvio. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

User:Victor falk/sandbox


This is a very good start for an article from an ESL contributor. I have 5 more minutes, so I haven't time to rewrite it as a news article, but it would be very kind if you could do so. (Note: the user is quite interested in the case, and may be a future contributor on the subject if given encouragement/gratification.) - Amgine | t 20:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply



It does. — μ 18:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Lol. You learn something new everyday... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply



What did you mean by your most recent edit summary "Please do not engage in this deceptive practice. The press must be honest."? --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 19:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean exactly what I said. When a mistake has been made, sweeping it under the carpet and pretending the information was always accurate and nobody was mislead is ethically rotten. Do not attempt to edit history - especially to try and make yourself/ourselves look better. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
So we shouldn't fix it? Why the h*ll did Pi zero leave me a message if it didn't need to be fixed, then he shouldn't have stated it on my talk page, I would clearly be able to see it in the recent changes. This is very confusing. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 19:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
It was fixed, with the correction notice. PiZ left you a note to let you know and suggest a way of reducing the number of errors that slip through. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Very confusing. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 19:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
How are these rewording and copy editing contributions? --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 20:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I like them. Providing no meaning or clarity is lost, saying the same thing in less time is pretty much always a good thing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay! So now I'm ready to review it. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 20:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Breaking news - Request review as it is 1:00 AM in my time zone and I can be available to edit

edit should be ready to rock. I am working late and would like to wrap up if I can be of assistance in the polishing of this article I would be thrilled to get the job done before I turn in, thanks anyway for getting the story to press. The whole world thought that cable was in, it was another TEPCO snafu, not the wikinews reporter. 08:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Geofferybard (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)I have been off line and am only briefly on line for now. DOn't know whether I was somehow taken for a ride I thought the IAEA was a reputable source.Geofferybard (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I removed two sources that were added after the article was published. Maybe you could "review" the removal of those two sources, as others may not understand the reason unless they review the article talk page where you commented. Mattisse (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

When is appropriate?


I have almost asked every user about this. :) At this rate of creating one article every week through November, and reviewing articles, when do you believe would be the best time to request the admin right, if any? I have been reading over the comments (most of which say create more articles), and I have also changed one of my editing style with making (I guess) good copy edits. I would like your opinion. Thanks --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 17:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC).

  • Let me sit on this and think for a few days. You're clearly trustworthy and I think it is probably time. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • I was expecting to wait until next month, or May. Possibly later. I'm quite surprised. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Renaming, கலை to Kalaiarasy


Mainly, I'm a Tamil wiki contributor and I created the account with a username in Tamil. I had problem in using the Soxred tool 'cos of this Tamil name. Besides, I felt that it would be nice to have my username in English (that everyone can read), and thus asked for renaming in My username was then changed from my old username கலை to my new username Kalaiarasy (that is my first name) in
Even after the renaming, I faced a few problems and have been advised to change the name in all wikis which I'm linked to. So, I made a request in Wikimedia, Meta-wiki at Steward requests page. They helped me changing my name in wikis which don't have the local bureaucrats and asked me get the renaming locally in wikis which have the local bureaucrats. So, I'm making the requests in those wikis and the local bureaucrats complete the renaming procedure. Can you please do my renaming in en.wikinews too?. Thanks in advance.--கலை (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to help! It is almost midnight in my time zone (UTC) so please allow me to leave it at least until tomorrow, so I can do all the checks etc and make sure everything's okay. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thank you very much for the immediate response. My time too passed midnight. Yes, I'm living in Norway :). You can do it tomorrow and it's not a problem.--கலை (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Not done, I'm afraid - it seems the username Kalaiarasy already exists on this wiki. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

When I changed my old username கலை to my new username Kalaiarasy in my home wiki (that is, it autocreated the new account Kalairasy in some other wikis, including en.wikinews too. You can see this here. I just want to confirm that both usernames are mine, and I now logged in as 'Kalaiarasy'. But I need the official renaming from கலை to Kalaiarasy. So please do the renaming in en.wikinews and that would help me in a few things. If it's changed officially only, then I can merge the en:wikinews too into my SUL as Kalaiarasy. See the links below too and you will find that both user names belong to me.

I wrote a message about my renaming in both my user pages. I wrote this in English as to inform all other wiki projects.

Hope you will do the renaming now without any problem. Thanks in advance--Kalaiarasy (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Do not mis-use reviewer privileges!


It seems that you have just deleted my text about Moka visiting Stockholm, claiming "Blatant Copyright Violation". That is not correct, as I am the writer, and photographer, so I believe I hold the copyright. So your motivation is incorrect. Second, I believe the proper way to do a deletion, is to discuss it on the article talk page. Please correct me, if I am wrong, or if you did indeed discuss and achieve consensus before deletion. I wish you a happy evening with many more original stories to review! --Janwikifoto (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You invented your own licence, which was incompatible with our licence. That is a copyright violation. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
If I may answer on BRS's behalf (I hope he won't mind), copyright violations—due to delicate legal issues—are deleted on sight. If you can prove that you hold the copyright, and are willing to release your work under the Creative Commons Attribution licence, feel free to put it back (any administrator, such as BRS or myself) can restore the page if you can provide proof that you hold the original copyright on the content. Δενδοδγε t\c 22:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Proof of copyright ownership isn't really the issue here. You do not get to dictate copyright terms. The Creative Commons licence currently in force is non-revocable and is absolute. One cannot restrict the licencing as you have attempted to do, one can only release it further. As such, Wikinews is not in a position to accept your content. However, you are welcome to resubmit, so long as you release the article under the correct licence. I satnd by deleting the article as it stands — blatant copyright violations are eligible for speedy deletion here on English Wikinews. Effectively, by placing it on Wikinews, where the licencing is more liberal than you would like, you were putting your own copyright at risk. Regards, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, first you should discuss before you delete, that is what I have been told. Second, it was obvious and apparent that I am releasing the text per Creative Commons, for ever, the only condition being that it is put on-line before 23-mar-2010 22:35 CET. Edits and changes allowed. It is just that I am not going to submit to trying to re-edit the text to the whims and unpredictible taste of some anonymous reviewer. The text is now online at (including deletion images!). If you are ok with publishing the text as-is, then it is relesed forever under Creative Commons license. I was going to ask how I prove copyright in the manner you would like, but according to the last comment that is not needed - thanks for a little sanity here. Now I will go to bed, so I wish you a wonderful night with a lot of original reporting. PS. You may also link to my site that is of course not a problem. --Janwikifoto (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Apparent copyright violations are shot on sight Jan. That includes duplicating your own work from your own site where you list an incompatible license. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's obviously the page where this "copyright violation" came from is this guy's website; he's agreed to the Creative Commons license by publishing the story here, and even on the Swedish version of Wikinews, so let's listen to the guy: "Don't waste his time." Restore the article and get back to work! <said in an obviously forked style> Diego Grez return fire 02:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why are you all gibbering here? The user stated xyr opinion/position, and is gone. Xe's not going to come back and engage in discussion over this. Get back to work? - Amgine | t 03:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I belive it is common courtesy to leave a note of _WHY_ something has been removed/deleted/changed, either on the project/article talk page, or on the user talk page. When I reflect again over it, I think it is mandatory Wikipedia policy. Are the reviewers who have commented here familiar with key Wikipedia values? I also belive deletion without consensus could be construed as deliberate vandalism, probably a reason to remove admin (reviewer) privileges. And I have indeed not seen any note/comment on the article talk page, or the user talk page, did I miss that in some way?
Furthermore, nobody has actually commented on the text, would the text AS-IT-IS be satisfactory for english Wikinews? If not, please motivate why not! The text is available at --Janwikifoto (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  1. You're alleging misuse of Reviewer; the ability to delete requires administrative privileges.
  2. This is not Wikipedia.
  3. You're doing nothing to endear yourself to a couple of local 'crats, an administrator, and someone whose been around longer than all three. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, then get down the big issue - is the text interesting enough? --Janwikifoto (talk) 09:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • You have my answer on your talk page; the article is restored. If you've sense, you'll withdraw your "no negotiations" copyright assertion on the talk page before someone hands you your arrogant ass in a sling. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ok, we go back to the standard CC-license, without any chnages, and see what happens then! I give up! I withdraw my "no negotiations" copyright assertion! --Janwikifoto (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

You had it right but others prevailed.

I don't see how it can be possible that I will waste any further time fighting the sluggish and provincial Wikinews reviewers, anytime soon. Geofferybard (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply



I dare you. — μ 13:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply



Would you consider reviewing this article for publication: NASCAR driver Juan Montoya earns 2011 Auto Club 400 pole position under somewhat of the same rationale as explained at Talk:Guatemalan president and first lady apply for divorce? The author requested deletion as "stale" on March 26 when the sources were dated March 25. I don't understand. If this request is out-of-line, please disregard it. Mattisse (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's just like if the author requested its deletion. If he does not want his article published, we can't do anything against it. Oh, and if you feel shocked about the Nascar1996's incident with what we did, you'd think it twice if you read what he said on IRC. Diego Grez return fire 18:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Its stale. Most definately. The race is today. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This request is perfectly in-line, Mattisse, so no need to worry. Rahter like PiZ said on that talk page, the limit is slightly variable. I'd normally be cool to publish - heck, it's within the normal limit - but if the race is today... What might be best is to salvage the text as background to include after the race. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

[t] in Australia to lose $2 billion due to Japanese disasters


Don't understand your edit, as "The" is the beginning of the sentence.

(from The Australian)

""The tragic events in Japan -- together with the impact of floods and Cyclone Yasi at home -- will clearly mean revenues take a substantial hit in the near term," Mr Swan said." So lower casing the "t" is incorrect. Mattisse (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The quote itself isn't relevant to the issue. The beginning of our sentence is much further on. Square brackets are used to indicate where a quote has been edited to make it grammatically correct within the text it has been incorporated into. What I am unsure of is how the : afftects this, which means the capital letter may be correct. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I disagree. If the quote were used in part so that grammatically the sentence would only be correct if the cap were changed, then reduced cap would work. That is not the case here. An example of what I mean is this sentence: Treasurer Swan said that "[t]he tragic events in Japan" along with Australia's recent weather problems will mean decreased revenues. Here a capital T would be incorrect.
It could reworded to say: "The tragic events in Japan—together with the impact of floods and Cyclone Yasi at home—will clearly mean revenues take a substantial hit in the near term," Treasurer Wayne Swan said in the brief. Here the punctuation in the quote is changed from a period to a comma to fit punctuating conventions. Mattisse (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's hard to disagree with me when I've openly said I don't know :). I still need to know how use of a : affects the quote opening. I still have no idea. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
According to the Wikipedia MOS (which I realize wikinews only follows when it wants to), "A colon may also be used to introduce direct speech enclosed within quotation marks". In other words, a colon - Use of capitals can be used in place of a comma when introducing a quotation. But I guess it is up to wikinews to develop its own MOS and determine these things. I can eliminate the colon and use a comma instead. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 16:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
You mean there isn't a right or wrong answer? Hmmm. If I'd known that I'd probably just have sighted it.
Of course, the irony is I've used that structure many times myself without even thinking about if it was right or not... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply



Hey BRS, I have closed the two requests for adminship at WN:RFP, but I am not a bureaucrat so I can't give them the admin bit (except for Kayau, I gave them the reviewer right). Can you please do that? Thanks! Diego Grez return fire 14:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Congress and the FDA


I have tried to explain on Talk:FDA issues proposed rules requiring calorie content on menus why Congress passing a law does not mean that it goes into effect. The FDA draw up the regulations necessary to implement the calorie content menu law.

I have changed the headline; hope it suits. Perhaps you can think of a better one? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Also, I don't understand your edit changing 20 to twenty, as in Wikinews:Style guide it is stated: Where numbers are in the "teens" it is generally preferred that the number be spelled out, but above that actual digits are the norm.

Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • I don't think I did change 20 to twenty; I do recall that convention and the written style guide have been out of sync in the past. I think the title at-present works fine, and I trust Tempodivalse to have read over everything very carefully before passing the article. I'm very glad to see everything finally resolved with the article. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Embargoed article


Can you take a look at my work on the reporters' wiki and offer input on how you'd approach putting this into a feature? --Brian McNeil / talk 11:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Eeep! --Brian McNeil / talk 16:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

QUestion on your WP page


I've asked a question on your EN.WP talk page. When you get back, if you could respond there, I'd appreciate it. Thanks in advance. - BilCat (talk) 01:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Reply



I'm a ooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Are yoooooooooooou?) — μchip08 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Love it


"Fascinating though this is, however, we're drfiting more wildly off-course than an Adam Air flight." Love that. Might be a bad sign, though, given that Adam Air was banned from the E.U. and then closed just over a year after 574. I've always been amused at how the owner decided to name it after her son, Adam, which never struck me as being particularly particularly inventive. wackywace 20:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Unlike the first two workshops, which seem to have been quite positive (I was only witness first-hand to the second), the third workshop was pretty disgusting. I can certainly understand Badmin walking out. (The last hour and a half of it is missing from the transcript at WN:IRC workshop, I see, but is included, with times off an hour and no color etc., at User:Microchip08/Log.) --Pi zero (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Yep, glad someone got the Adam Air reference - I did quite a bit of work both here and on Wikipedia about them. There's a wonderful report someplace about a plane that really did get wildly lost (I'm quoting the pilot from memory here, might be a little off, but he told the passengers something along the lines of "We are going to land now. Where we are exactly I am not sure. What's important is we are land.[Sic]"). This bright orange 737 turned up and landed unanounced at some tiny airport miles from any major routes.
  • I was greatly disappointed with how the meeting turned out. It was a rare occasion where I actually wasn't comfortable carrying on a conversation. Wether we look at the minor digression in the dicussion, or the entire conversation, Adam Air and the culture there seem a pretty apt comparison. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • You aren't the only one Blood Red Sandman. If we have a meeting, it needs proper setup, someone to run it, chair it or whatever you want to call it, and it needs managing like a meeting should be. Not people discussing varying different topics in random orders, 3 or 4 conversations going at the same time, and the kind of timekeeping only seen in a room full of people under anaesthetic. We started bloody near 30 minutes late, and from then onwards, it was about as well organised as a shuffled pack of playing cards thrown into the path of a giant fan. I walked out, and to be honest, I'm glad I did. The whole thing was an exercise in extreme pointlessness. BarkingFish (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Why is nobody willing to talk about anything real? I said in the IRC that it was like having the parents in the room. It's like some unseen presence is putting the cabash on any forthright discussion. It's the "elephant in the room" thing. It certainly takes away any desire to write articles, as enjoyable as that is. Why can't wikinews be more like wikisource where, despite the technical challenges, editors persist out of pure interest? I don't understand. Mattisse (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The reply was not directed to you


In fact, I can't even find my "reply" to you on the page. I just made a couple of "replies" regarding that the general issue was one of free speech and only incidentally had to do with religion in this case. So the court issue was not on the merits of one religion over another, or the merits of religion over no religion. I didn't mean to reply to you specifically, and didn't know I was doing so. I apologize. As I said, I can't even find that reply now when I look at the "comments" page. I'm sorry if it seemed I was aiming a comment at you. Mattisse (talk) 22:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

  • Don't worry about it. The threading can actually get quite confusing on a long/lively discussion. BTW, your reply is probably hidden because after so-and-so many replies the software collapses them. Somewhere there'll be things saying stuff like "See three replies", "See two replies" etc. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

don't get it


Why do you block someone with no contributions? Just trying to understand, per User_talk:Scales. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am soliciting your input


I am attempting a Dispute resolution at Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Brian McNeil and Mattisse and I am soliciting your input as to the problem. I urge you to give feedback. Please help. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply



Can i make one? ty. --Beginner2 (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

UoW student work


The page you deleted, Anti-Drug War protests set to continue in Mexico, belongs to UoW 2011 student work category. Please note that the category page advises to move such pages to user namespace instead of deleting, and that the category is hidden - it's visible only if you view page source, or enable viewing hidden categories. Should we re-consider having it hidden, or using some sort of notification template at the articles? --Gryllida (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey there! I noticed on the Watercooler page you said you wouldn't mind helping out UOW students! I uploaded an article to be reviewed yesterday at , however because I don't know how to add myself to the UOW network I think it might prove more difficult to get reviewed. I was just wondering is there any chance you could please have a look at it and provide some feedback? This website is really confusing to a new user! Thanks, Crm644

Crm644 (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oi, fix your hardware failure soon!


We have a chemistry exam to discuss! :-P DENDODGE 17:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Blood Red Sandman/Archive 4".