This is an archive of old talk page discussions!
Do not add new comments to this page, please do so on my main talk page

Archive 01 — January 9, 2006 | Archive 02 — April 6, 2006 | Archive 03 — June 4, 2006 | Archive 04 — September 29, 2006 | Archive 05 — December 9, 2006 | Archive 06 — March 24, 2007 | Archive07 — May 30, 2007 | Archive 08 — November 4, 2007 Archive 08 — November 4, 2007 | Archive 09 — March 25, 2008

It's January!

May I nominate you for admin? <grins> - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was just thinking of asking him that too. You beat me too it. Bawolff ☺☻  00:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
<chuckles> If you share the champagne, I'll let this wait for a day or two so we can recover and write a bit more coherently. In the meantime, I'll put you down as a yes pending... <grin> And hope your New Year is jolly! - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
(And if you make an account there, you can set your signature to link back here, and...)
Wow! I was just coming here to ask him that question too.  :) Nyarlathotep 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please, feel free to edit the nomination as you wish. I was a bit rushed, or I would have looked for links myself. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


<nod> This has come up many times in the past, and there has not been consensus to require UTC. It would look rather odd, however, to have a Jan. 2 article citing Jan. 3 sources. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Editing Article: Bolivian President-Elect takes 50% pay cut ...

I'm not sure if the first two photos are considered 'public' or not so they both may go soon. I need help sorting that out too.

Also how can the title be adjusted?? It would be shorter and read better and hopefully not loos meaning by making programs plural and remove 'funding': Bolivian President-Elect takes 50% pay cut to aid social programs

I hope to hear back soon from you or someone else about the above. I'm not sure how the communication works, how to contact others etc - yet.

Your help is much appreciated. Thank you. ---

To respond to someone, you need to write on their talk page, I have a link in my Easy 17:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC) signature (you should put that at the end of all entries on talk pages). Can you detail where the pictures came from on the talk page, or image pages, then someone better versed in copyright than me can give you an opinion.Reply
My main issue is that, for an article of this length, you really can't fit in more than two images. I liked the map, and had resized it as I prefer to make things legible enough that people don't go clicking off to an image that there's no easy way back from. How many images looks good is a personal opinion thing, but if you can keep them from interfering with the sources section it'll probably look a lot better. Brian McNeil / talk 17:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Ok let's see how this response to your talk page works. Do you reply to my talk page or do I come back here - still learning this.

Hopefully my signature below works fine. If not let me know how to improve it.

The source section is now on it's own.

The photo origins are detailed on the commons upload. The 17 year old is from the campaign, picked up by Reuters. The press conference is from the Aljazera article. It seems Wikinews and Aljazera have some kind of understanding if you know what it is and where to find more let me know.

Thank you again for your kind help.

User:Easy' / User talk:Easy''talk'' ---

The article looks a lot better now, but if you picked up those pictures off of Reuters and Aljazeera then you're probably violating copyright by using them. If you want to set up a custom signature, that's under "preferences" at the top of the page, and you'll probably be best looking it up on Wikipedia to find out a bit more about that. The code for my signature, in the Nickname field on preferences is, Brian McNeil / talk and I have the raw signatures checkbox set.

As to where to respond to people, it depends. Some people will respond on their own talk page, leaving you to look at your contributions or watching their user page to see if they've responded. Others make life easier and respond on your talk page, there's basically no hard-and-fast rule for it - just don't edit other people's comments.

Renaming an article may only be done by people who have accounts (that includes you). The link is at the top of the page, labelled rename, just click on it and you'll be presented with a chance to change the name and explain why. What you have to watch is if the article is being renamed for a second or subsequent time. The old title you're renaming from will be correctly set up as a redirect to your new name, but older names for the article will need manually changed to redirect to the latest title. That might take a bit of practice, and it more likely to encourage you to think carefully when naming articles. :) Brian McNeil / talk 19:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. It is much appreciated.

The first two photos of the article were put in the commons with the details of where they came from. If you could direct me to someone that could help me sort out if they are really appropriate or not please do. I assume someone, eventually will get to this since they are NOT labeled as public and have questions as part of the upload details.

I think my signature is now working - see below. What does checking 'raw signature' do? I haven't checked it and things seem to be working ok.

What is a custom signature?

User:Easy / talk

Rape and murder suspects in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico arrested

Brian, since you seem to agree with me that the title should include the name of the country, please change it to include the country. I would, but he is threatening to have me blocked for 24 hours due to 4 reverts. If he reverts your change that will be his 4th revert, and we can get a 24 hour block on him. I also think the fact that the women are murdered is important enough to include in the title. If you agree, please add that as well. StuRat 20:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

New Day

I just saw, that an article had been published, so to get it on the front page I went and added, a new day. Plus on other days; a new date has been added before a new day in UTC time, and aren’t stories meant to be in local time? Thanks Brian New Zealand 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.

I just added all the new days for January, a bot should really do it but it's only 31 pages to create max each month. Brian McNeil / talk 11:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, dearly, for the boilerplate. ;)

I've received quite a number of these on WP. In fact, I haven't but recently been reading and editing WN, so it's good to see there's already an article I can contribute meaningfully to. Sorry about the edit conflicts, I saw you got that in and it's good stuff. Thanks for your help, too.


The anniversary sounds better to me! <grin> - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Paragraph Removed

The paragraph has been removed. If would be helpful for me if a more explicit explanation was given about what needed to be adjusted in the paragraph since it was essentially a paraphrase of what the prime source had said. It would seem that both the source and those opposed to the sources statement would find the statement accurate - which is my understanding of what a neutral point of view is about.

Be that is it may - the paragraph is gone and as far as I can tell there are no further source issues or other issues.

If that is the case is it up to you to change from develop to publish?? Or should I do that?

If there are further issues that need to be addressed please be specific and I'll take care of them.

Easy 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)talkReply


Please help the stories and those people you say hi to are they for real? thanks expand hopefully nice

Intervew of the month

You may wish to move your question for one of the EFF topics to the main page. That was how we did it for Roberto's Neighbor and it seemed to work well. When they are on the talk page it will probably become increasingly difficult to manage as more information is added. --Sfullenwider 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Article vandalism

I figured that Dragonfire1024 07:35, 13 January 2006 (EST)

Today Infobox

Alright, I don't have any problem with them staying on article, I just expected that they were to be deleted. No idea if other users have an opinion. Nyarlathotep 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Vote on Wikinews:Editors


I think the policy proposed at Wikinews:Editors is a very bad idea, and would like you to reconsider your (implicit) support. Please take a look at my comments on Wikinews talk:Editors; I'd be interested in your thoughts.--Eloquence 14:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

RE: Don't be discouraged

I look at news everywhere. I look at both ends of the line. But you cannot drive an articles away from what is reported. What was reported: Zawahiri is the target 2) I will not allow articles to be published that are not factual or has debatable items. I reports on the NEWS not a political agenda. I report on what MY sources say or I report on where I get my info from. Unless sources state differently then i would agree. I am going to stick around, but we report news and facts, not beliefs or agendas. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 20:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
It seems neutralizer is up to his editing of old articles that are published. The one on Zawahiri tape was edited. I do not like how it was done. Please make sure he does not sabotage any articles. Jason Safoutin 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
He is also deleteing messages on his discussion page. Jason Safoutin 03:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Can you fix the big blank space in the david anderson interview article? Jason Safoutin 17:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


it seems like breaking... why minimal? develop yes but minimal more should be added. WM

I noticed someone who made a terrorist portal and a osama bin laden portal...are those necessary? it was created by user: noticed ha had a "artiocle" on speedy delete...just thought I would point this out to you. Jason Safoutin 21:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Edit on Fathers For justice news item

Thank you for doing that i now see the error of my ways!! will endevour to do it properly in future!

No you wouldent, living in the UK, I use their Radio, TV and internet productions and i have picked up a thing or two over the years! TG 21:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

why!!?? it is one way to get message of worst government of russia HELP US!

yahoo news hitler followers are muslims of 2006. -- 19:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


Congratulations! - Amgine | talk en.WN 03:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (whee! first!)Reply


Congratulations,you are now an Admin. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me. w:Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide is a great resource for how to use your new powers, just keep in mind our policy does vary from pedias. --Cspurrier 03:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

The offical Wikinews staff car

Mr McNeil, I am honored to provide you with appropriate transportation for your new duties. Congratulations, sir. --Deprifry|+T+ 10:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Congrats!  :) Nyarlathotep 16:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah, okay! Cheers matey, didn't know. :-) Spum 13:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes Congratulations, I been away, just found out :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

School IP addresses

I blocked for vandalism earlier, but a lookup on the IP states it as "Fairfax County Public Schools FCPS". I'm sure I've seen other IP pages where they listed what school or library the IP belongs to. It there a template for that to put on the IP (user or talk page?) and if the guy comes back would it be worth notifying FCPS? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Template:Sharedip can be placed on the user's talk page. Depending on the type of vandalism contacting the school can be very effective. --Cspurrier 15:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


Could you fix the big blank white in the article?? Jason Safoutin 18:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

still Jason Safoutin 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I see that there may be a possible setback on the stardust project...I am wondering if I should hold off publication of the interview with David Anderson until we hear from NASA again? Jason Safoutin 14:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
LoL...what do you mean by annoy them? Jason Safoutin 14:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Would you do the honors of putting the Stardust article as the feature or lead on the front page? Jason Safoutin 15:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem...

The vagaries of internet connections are legion. We managed okay; I'm just being afraid to look at the article at the moment (a common problem for me after letting it sit for 24 hours; I'll come back and only see where I screwed up.) - Amgine | talk en.WN 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

striking comments

Thanks; I am unsure whether it is better wiki procedure to strike than delete? If so, should I rollback my comment before striking or should you? Thanks for help. Neutralizer 17:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Protecting articles for archival purposes

I was reading the water cooler and noticed that you intend to begin protecting articles more than a month old... Per Wikinews:Archive conventions, any article older than 2 weeks can and should be protected to preserve its integrity. As administrators, we've been falling down on the job, I think. Perhaps some initiative to protect articles should be initiated. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Fallen back, yeah we're about over a year behind. Bawolff ☺☻  00:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Can only an administrator protect pages? I am home enough that I could do it if not. Jason Safoutin 00:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yep, admins can't do much... but block and protect are our primary "buttons"... There has been some talk of creating a bot to do page protections. If we could ever get caught up -- and there are some months in 2005 that are completely protected -- it wouldn't be a big deal to daily protect one day. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
I started to do two days a day, but then I just forgot about it. Bawolff ☺☻  00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
When I get back tonight, I'll push all the active admins to protect some articles -- and I'll create a page showing which months need protecting... How does that sound? --Chiacomo (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
What happeded to Write/edit articles on the Navigation bar? Jason Safoutin 20:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not to mention that it is smaller with less links. Jason Safoutin 21:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


Thank you for your trust in me; Yes I'll accept the nomination. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gov Ip's

a little bit obsessed that the gov is writing wikinews, are we[1]? Bawolff ☺☻  21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Holy crap a trophy!

I, —MESSEDROCKER (talk), hereby award you the Wikinews Trophy because you archive stories like a **censored**. 21:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Interpreting Tag Comments

How can I fix an article that you flag for clean up when the tag comments don't make sense. I don't know what I need to fix.--Tjkphilosofe 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok I have fixed the article and tried to change the title but the title not displaying the way I fixed it.--Tjkphilosofe 12:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

How can edit the title. I tried using the headline code to change the title but the old and new titles was both displaying.--Tjkphilosofe 13:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I see it now. Ok I have the article looking better now.--Tjkphilosofe 13:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

First articles

Well those were my first articles to contribute. May be brief but as time goes by others will get longer.--Tjkphilosofe 13:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Protection frenzy

Is there any way I could help in your quest? Like taking care of a month you're not covering? --Deprifry|+T+ 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okey dokey. I think I'm gonna take August. It seems like a nice month :) --Deprifry|+T+ 21:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ping from neutral ground...

Ping, StrangerInParadise 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply


Can you strike that comment from the article page and move it to my talk page to continue the discussion there? (brianmc)

This quote template needs work. What comment on what article page? Or did you mean Neutralizer's talk page. I called it neutral ground because it happened to be about neutral sources and NPOV on Neutralizer's talk page. I continued there that he may continue to be host to it. Since I am asking for your opinion, what would you like to do?

As to your Kubby edits, I didn't question your good faith, I questioned MrM's good faith and your good judgement- in part owing simply to the typographical errors introduced, but also concerning disagreements regarding POV and sourcing.

StrangerInParadise 23:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't paying attention to which page you'd linked to, it was my opinion that the discussion probably didn't belong there - wherever there was. My personal opinion is that we should avoid links that aren't inter-wiki in the body of an article, and that was my reason for supporting MrM's objections and making edits accordingly. That's that. If you dwell on every story that wasn't presented exactly as you liked then you'd never publish anything. If you have any sort of political or social agenda, then the only way you can contribute to wikinews with it is in your selection of stories --Brian McNeil / talk 23:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Personally, I didn't care so much about how the in-line links were done, and was amenable to guidance. The links were consistent with the policy page, but I actually prefer the look without. I did mind having key text deleted with the comment unsourced, which happened several times. I've already commented on the editorialization issue and the shivering comment. Of course, MrM using the block against me on an article in which he was engaged was unconscionable, and against policy. I fail to understand why such an admin wouldn't be stripped immediately.

The annoying thing was that the article, in its very first draft, was completely well-sourced. To have to defend simultaneously claims of unsourced text and POV text, and have my motives constantly questioned were infuriating. Has it occured to anyone (I return to my original point) that if one's sole point of reference for NPOV is the corporate press, anything outside of its worldview will seem- often wrongly- POV. The corporate press exercises powerful POV simply by the things they omit, yet adding them here draws regular accusations of bias.

It seems to me that- with considerable restraint, I promoted the human aspects of the story, using quotes etc. I neither belabored nor even repeated. My only regret was not having any comment from the jails themselves (their no comment came much later), or time to analyse the relevant law (probably a separate article). Subsequent events only confirmed my choices.

My "selection of story" was one of a man incarcerated without vital medication in disregard for his health and in violation of both law and common decency. I don't have to show Kubby to be innocent or cannabis to be wrongly illegal. Every mainstream news account described him (inaccurately) as a failed fugitive who blew his chances at cushy house arrest, and is now dubiously claiming to need to smoke pot in prison. The Auburn Journal even ran a picture of him with Cheech Marin. Why did I constantly hear POV, and have my objectivity questioned repeatedly by you and others (including here above)? It was unjust, and irrational.

StrangerInParadise 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I had seen an earlier draft on the Kubby story, that looked complete and okay with regards to POV. I was later asked to look at it due to tagging, and I agreed with the points that were raised as objections. I quickly reverted to an earlier version which I proposed in IRC to MrM and Neutralizer, I then addressed minor concerns with that version, and from the edit history the key point you seemed upset about was generally held to be POV, namely the "shivering" and "fears realised" bit.
I don't really consider Neutralizer's talk page any sort of neutral ground, no user or user talk page really is. He's had conflicts with MrM in the past, mainly because MrM is blunt and strictly enforces policy. In this case, the block was qualified for under the rules, but it should have been requested that another admin apply it.
As far as I'm concerned, that's an end to the matter. If you want to take it further bring it up on the Water cooler in a concise manner, I - as yet - have no experience of 3RR blocks, having neither issued nor received one. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

As you may imagine, that your conference with other users took place while I was blocked does color somewhat the appearance of consensus for me. You may well ask yourself whether MrM was enforcing the rules, or breaking one rule, while taking advantage of a technicality in order to have his way. That is not strict, that is corrupt. Finally, I was more interested in the notion of the BBC as some sort of paragon or neutrality, and people's (not just yours) subjective notions of POV as itself a form of bias. I didn't intend to complain about your edits (again).

Amgine is currently censonring an article I wrote because I dared contrast the words of a gov't spokesman with facts. Nice little news culture you got here.

StrangerInParadise 20:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

StrangerInParadise's block

I've reapplied the block for 48 hours as of last night, because in the blocking policy, it states:


Disruption Admins may, at their judgement, block IP addresses or usersnames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikinews. Such disruption may include changing other users' signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked progressively longer, up to 30 days.

The 3RR states a 24h block for the first offense, which is fair. I do believe an additional 24h is fair, considering this is the user's second block within one week for the same offense, and he has undoubtedly been warned numerous times before the block.

I will not speak of the user's attitude towards the block, because I feel it is quite transparent - the user does not show an interest in reforming his ways of editing, after being informed of his wrongdoings, and warned before blocked. After the blocks, he asserts that the block is unfair and that it should be uplifted because an attempted ploy where users trap admins into becoming a participant in a dispute, so the "do not block while in dispute" rule applies. For this reason, he was blocked by me, because there was no conflict until after the block -- fair warnings were given.

Therefore, I have balanced the block back to a scaled 48h block. Please contact me if you wish to continue this discussion. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Image:Darfur refugees.jpg

Image:Darfur refugees.jpg is a image that is about to get deleted from wikimedia commons, the problem is that it is used on a few of your protected pages, can you remove them. Thanks --Aranda56 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

News brief

I reverted this edit - [2] - just temporarily to get it out of the developing list on the main page. Is there a reason this was unpublished? - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Er... It was listed somewhere weird because of something like a date template on it. I couldn't work out why it was listed on the archives. Let me look up where this was an issue... --Brian McNeil / talk 21:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
<grin> Remind me tomorrow - you are getting a trophy. Great work on the archiving, and your content edits keep climbing! - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Will look when I get back. Late for dentist. - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply


I, Amgine, hereby award Brianmc the Wikinews Trophy for Archival Efforts (above and beyond the call of duty but please don't stop now!)

Way great effort there! (and when I have time to breath I will try to help out again) - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for the message. I am also a user on Wikipedia, and have edited there. If there are any new templates, rules etc. please let me know!

Urameshi2 23:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

featured story or second lead

I think this article shoudnt be on feature (3:rd lead). Feature is better with someting "cooler" subject. International 21:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply


This award is presented to Wikinews reporters upon their 50th published news article.

You deserve this. Congratulations and thanks for contributing to Wikinews! --Chiacomo (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I'm a bit hasty... Just store it here for a while.. --Chiacomo (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply


I, Brian New Zealand hereby award you the Wikinews Trophy for setting new archiving records (or getting close to it :)

I killed your cleanup tag

because it didn't make sense in the context of the article (for cricket thing) Bawolff ☺☻  22:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thai Wikinews

Just a late response. I am currently on wikibreak :-)

It is a bit sad that Thai contributors felt uneasy with the Wikinews policy & guideline. Especially under current political situation in Thailand, it is hard to find a neutral source or writing unbias article. Even on Thai Wikipedia, debates also occured after many relating articles. It should take time for Thai Wikinews being active again. --PaePae 10:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Suicide Whale

I think this is the funniest cartoon I've seen in ages. I strongly recommend everyone look at it before the copyright holder sues me into oblivion. :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply


I don't think Wikinews is as big a community as 'Pedia. Or as big a news source, unfortunately, given the fact that WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia more than a news source. Rickyrab 19:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

What do you do when you suspect a virus has been posted?

Hi Brian, thanks for the welcome note. On this page:

I suspect the link containing the word "responce" (links to "" might have triggered a trojan on my PC. There's nothing obvious in the link itself and I'm afraid to click the link again to test it! Is there some "virus sweep" tag that can be put on a page? Should I comment-out the offending link?

Cheers, Aelfgifu 14:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Aussie welcome

Last time I checked, there were more Aussies living in Canada than Australia. :-) Seriously but, I've tried to make it a general welcome incase I'm off the mark - it says "if you're an Aussie". Thanks for letting me know about the site.... - Borofkin 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the boilerplate.

You're pretty quick, you know.

(by the way, I'm the reason it says "Yes, even if you're not a logged in user") ironiridis 21:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lead edit warring

I'm aware there is edit warring in the leads. This is highly disruptive. Please stop. - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Trophy offer

I wont say no to your trophy offer LOL, I would actually have one then :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for the trophy - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Tankyou for cleaning the mese I created. Is their some way Pages like India can be putup for semi-protection. Srinivasasha 03:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Block Request

Hi,Brian, Thanks for taking your time to look at MrM's request. I still have trouble knowing when I cross the line between reasonable article discussion/editing and doing something that warrents the block button. Is it possible, whenever you have time, to look at the article you referred to and give me some guidance as to what I might have done in a better way? Neutralizer 13:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Probably the most difficult thing to do to avoid conflict is to stop assuming MrM has a significant pro-Western POV which he applies in articles. From where I'm sitting, he uses his choice of created articles as an expression of POV and within those articles sticks to what is within the sources and a fairly reasonable presentation of NPOV. On the other hand I sometimes wonder if you read too many blogs or other stuff like that where there is a touch of conspiracy tied into passionate editorial. Don't let that creep into your contributions.
Next thing I'd suggest is don't be so keen to get something published. I know there's a lot of the time that's the fastest way to get a review, but if you put up 2 or 3 short paragraphs under develop and go sourcehunting you should be able to build a more coherent picture of the situation. I sometimes end up with 10-20 sources open in tabs in one Firefox session, and then edit the article in another. As I finish expanding or replacing each of my initial paragraphs I'll make sure each point is cited in a source, in a related article, or by some other means that is explained within the article (E.g. Last paragraph on Opposition may boycott Thai election; demonstrators want Thaksin out cites Wikipedia with a link to the article that I quote from). The pain in sourcing things is keeping the number you list on the article reasonable. Every source link is an opportunity for someone to leave wikinews and continue their reading on another site.
You do seek third party help when you get into a dispute, but it sometimes comes across as being done with the conviction that the third party will invariably side with MrM. Don't assume tags are unjustified when you receive them, if you don't get it then ask someone else to try and figure it out for you. As those you place yourself are not always well received, lay out your objections on the talk page then look for someone to read the article, go through your objections, and comment. If they put the tag on, so much the better.
Something to keep in mind in trying to follow all of the above is not to be devisive to the community. Try and avoid getting into "us vs them" situations with opposing groups of contributors. Conflicts between you and MrM are often the catalyst for such events, and with our open editorial process frayed short tempers don't reflect well on the project.
Anyway, sorry I took a while to respond. Work and life in general have been keeping me busy. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Brian, very much

I really appreciate the detail and thought that went into your response. I just read it through and the whole thing makes sense. I will now see it as a resource and refer to it as I try to move forward and improve my contribution to the project. You will never see your thoughtful response removed from my talk least not until I am sure I have absorbed and implemented your proposals. You know, I haven't forgotten how you encouraged me to start the birdflu userbox; which is the thing I am most proud of here. Neutralizer 20:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Would you please put personal criticisms on my talk page?

Rather than in article talk pages or places like Arbcom workshops. I would appreciate it:) Thanks in advance for considering my request. Neutralizer 21:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Here's what I have on the main page right now

Thanks,Brian, for the consideration. I don't know if you noticed that 5 of the main page published stories were begun and some written almost entirely by me and there are 2 more in development;

Czech woman wins the first Sudoku world championship

Czech pub food eating experiment resulted in lost weight, lower cholesterol

Wikipedia's Wales is considering a "stable" version

Bush nominates a new ambassador to Australia

Toronto to have socialized city-wide wi-fi access

800 British troops being pulled out of Iraq

18 Motorcyclists killed during Bike Week.

Brian, I have been working really hard with article production and it would be nice if you could maybe notice that and say "well done" or something like that? Neutralizer 21:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Look, I don't particularly want to pick on anyone, and your contributions that do lead to articles garner less attention than they should. However, whenever there's any dispute you're one of the first to wade into it, particularly if it involves one of the admins you've had problems with in the past. Personally I'd rather work in the main namespace all the time as I'm able to work within the project guidelines, but when I see people railing against the guidelines because they see an injustice of some such problem I get annoyed. Every day there are extended debates on policy pages, the article count is down. I have a number of policy-related pages on my watchlist, and you are not the only person who I believe - perhaps in ignorance - is disrupting the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok. believe me, I'd prefer to just stay in the main namespace; so maybe I will try that for awhile. Would you be willing to share with me the policy-related pages on your watchlist so I could try to stay away from them? Also, I wonder whether you or anyone has been keeping track of the number of users who have said they left the project because of the way they were treated? I don't know of any that have said they left because of me. Perhaps you might consider some of those people like Opalus might be helping with our article count; have you considered that at all? If so, what are you doing about that aspect? Neutralizer 23:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to eveasdrop but I just thought Neutralizer might be intreasted in WN:SL. Bawolff ☺☻  23:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia article

[3] I just tried to deal with a strange(I thought) tag and MrM jumped in 4 minutes later to revert my attempt. Since you did a lot of work on that article,I just wanted to lyk in case you wanted to have a look. I will not be warring with MrM about anything at all,myself. Neutralizer 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You'll see I've already responded. In this case I felt the best action was to ask for more specific items. I wasn't 100% happy with the article when I published it, so if I can work with someone to address what they perceive as weaknesses then I'll probably have an end product we're all happy with. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for welcome message on my wikinews talk page. Although I am not a novice at wikipedia, I could do with some help understanding how to mark up news articles - specifically how to request others to collaborate and at what point an article should have the {{publish}} tag added. I recently added the Global measles deaths plunge by 48% over past six years on March 10 and it got no response (but a fall in annual death rates of over 400,000 should be newsworthy). The help page Wikinews:Article flags is supposed to help, but it just confusd me more:

  • {{editing}} - means article is being developed and other editors not to engage for fear edit conflicts
  • then there is a whole series of dispute or problem tags or request deletion
  • {{publish}} - does not get mentioned at all !
  • so what tag to use to mean "pleaseeeee join in and help" ?

Finally who selects the stories that form the "In the news" section over on wikipedia's front page ? David RubenTalk02:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

H5N1 bird flu virus reaches Poland

Can you pelase check the article and see if it is suitable to remove your cleanup tag? - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


Please read the section above. Also, I don't know what's up with the sniping and "wiki-stalking" you are engaging in; I have contributed much more to the main page than you have, I'm sure. I can only assume you are being used by someone. Maybe we can try to stay out of each other's hair for awhile? Is that ok with you? Neutralizer 22:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

If you want to avoid critical comments from me, stop making edits to policy pages that reflect that you have grudges against some administrators – or just leave the policy stuff alone altogether, it distracts everyone, including me, from getting on with the business of writing stories.
My recent contributions have been limited as I am extremely busy with work, but you'll see that my first edit of today was one of the things I regularly monitor and update. I'm also not too bothered about getting lots of things on the main page, I have most of my recent work collected here. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


The last article I began was met with a negative comment from you on the article talk page 2 minutes after the article was released. Again I am asking that you try to refrain from heel nipping and I respectfully request that you read our policy on Wikistalking. Hopefully we can work more collaboratively and I certainly do appreciate your contributions to any and all articles. Neutralizer 23:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thai election

I noted your interest in the Thai elections. As well as editing at Wikipedia I have a website devoted to election results and maps. If you knowledgable about Thai elections I am keen to find online maps of the current election districts, lists of candidates and anything you may come across. Please let me know if you find anything. Adam

v MrM

I noticed your post. I understand the 2nd part, but not the 1st, a "cop out". What do you mean? -Edbrown05 10:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

The link is to the Wikipedia article on proxy servers, and is in reference to the attempt by Neutralizer to bring me into the dispute by bringing up a block that I reviewed. I do not know if MrM was checking to see if a proxy was being used by Neutralizer or not in that case, and if he isn't going to participate in the process then I'm not going to investigate it myself. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Understood, thanks for the reply. -Edbrown05 10:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sky news does say so

I am surprised that you aren't banned for your ruthless defamation against me!!!!,,30000-1216852,00.html?f=dta


That was a cut-n-paste copy from Sky's website, which constitutes copyright infringement. I have addressed the point raised by this aggressive user on the relevant article talk page, namely that the URL provided in the article did not work. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for help on Columbus Ohio Immigrants Rights Rally

Brian, thank you for your edits on the Columbus, Ohio, immigrants rights rally article. This is my first Wikinews article, so I appreciate the learning experience. I noticed today that the dateline was set for 3-26, and I wondered how Wikinews figured out that this was the right date (the date of the rally). Now I know I just got lucky. I see now that style for citing sources. Thank you. r3 21:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I was just joking with you ;-)

btw, how else could i post the article that you couldn't read without breaking the copyright infridgement? 00:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


Don't know how I was editing that template instead of editing the page I thought I was, but thanks for fixing it. Lyellin 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I was just writing you a message to say it was down to someone using {{hello}} instead of {{subst:hello}}, so if you're on the welcome committee, you might want to bear that in mind. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikinews:Neutral point of view

I dont think it is good to remove that part. It is important. I will be much happier if you put it back International 22:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please dont change policys without discussions . That policy stands untill consensus is reached. International 22:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Was it added with conesnsus in the first place, or was it just added? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I dont know how it was added. It has been there for some time and disputed now. It is not just to delete it. Its like begging for a edit war. International 22:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Then discuss it, don't war it. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Brian... just curious, when you said that you "rolled back to the version without this extremely partisan text", which version did you mean? Can you provide a link? - Borofkin 03:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

For clarification, it was not a rollback but rather a deletion. This text has always been part of Wikinews NPOV [4] Neutralizer 13:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply


Hi,Brian, I would like to start off on a fresh footing with you. Do you have any ideas as to how we could get along better without either of us being critical of each other in the process of reaching that goal? Perhaps you could select a developing story for us both to work on collaboratively? Just an idea. Neutralizer 13:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Patrick Murphy article

Brian - if you have time could you post what else is non entirely clarified by the Murphy article? I am from the area so I suspect I assume too much, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Lyellin 19:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Friendly suggestion; Please do some homework first.

Hi, As I expressed back when your name was first put up for adminship; imo, you tend to make half-baked accusations based on nothing other than seat of the pants assumptions( e.g. [5] ).

Since you express concern about our article count may I respectfully suggest;

  • A; You might concentrate more on producing more articles and beefing up your edit count on the main page rather than spending your time on Wikinews policy.
  • B; If you insist upon addressing our policies, you might take a few moments to research the history of policy you wish to attack before launching into assumptions and dragging others away from writing articles and you might also try to avoid gross exagerations and hysterical "conspiracy theory" charges. The "digging into the history and cross-checking with Wikipedia" you refer to took me all of 3 minutes and if only you had done that first (you ended up doing it anyway), perhaps you would not have distracted so much editors' time away from writing articles.
  • C; Next time you conclude that a policy should be deleted; please put a notice on the watercooler and allow community discussion before acting on your own.

Thanks for considering my constructive suggestions for you and I appreciate the ones you have made to me in the past. Neutralizer 21:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's nothing half-baked about my accusation, it is an accurate synopsis of how you were interpreting that aspect of policy. The message should have been clear, I did not find your interpretation acceptable, and based on your interpretation the aspect of policy should be removed. Sure, I acted quickly, and I reverted once without having researched the page history, but it wouldn't come to that if you didn't twist the intent of policy to suit yourself. You seem to be the only person who sees malicious intent in my actions because it was taking you to task for what I felt was, like the above, an attack on another editor.
As for your suggestions, take them elsewhere. I'm sick and tired of you accusing me of having a mote in my eye when you can't see round the fencepost in your own. I have nearly twice as many article contributions as you, and if anyone need to leave policy the hell alone it's you, you've more than three times the number of edits I have on project pages. That despite having a lot on my plate work-wise at the moment. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please do not misrepresent; I address no malicious intent on your part; simply carelessness and assumptiveness. Since you blame your own errors on others and reject even considering well meaning suggestions, it's doubtful you are open to seeing any room for improvement with the log (not mote) in your own eye. Having said that, I do feel your editing contributions are, overall, an asset to Wikinews. Neutralizer 13:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've seen you having a similar dispute-cum-discussion elsewhere on the wiki with another administrator. Plus you've flip-flopped on what my actions were. First it was "vandalism", which implies you were looking to have me blocked for it, now I was "just careless". You are being disingenuous to avoid accepting that your use of the policy to interfere with an article was based on an extreme interpretation that was never intended. This characterises your attitude on the wiki, and you don't seem to care that it creates a hostile environment where others are encouraged to be curt and defensive.
That's why I can't work with you towards some form of "reconciliation", I can't respect the tactics you adopt when you don't like something. You dive off into policy and where things are meant to be interpreted in a fairly relaxed manner you twist it into something that allows you to be disruptive and claim there is a reason for it. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure that there is such a thing as "hostile environment", only hostile behavior. I challenge you to present our comments here on your talk page to some outsider whom you respect and ask them whoses words herein are the most "hostile". Also, You misquoted me when you said "just careless"; as I did not use the word "just". Neutralizer 22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

He did and I am. I don't think either of you are being that hostile, really. Things just need to be talked through thoroughly. It can be a bit, well, frustrating but working together with open minds is the only way consensus is going to be achieved, and consensus is a fundemental part of wikis. Well, unless you want to spend the rest of your lives edit-warring and looking like berks to outsiders...

One thing though - please don't use inflammatory words. Vandalism, for example, is something we all know and hate well and what Brian did on the npov page could never be considered vandalism, so just don't call it that. However reverting a change, if you disagree with it, is the right thing to do. Just put it nicely, and start talking - calmly and constructively - on the talk page. Which you did :-). Dan100 (Talk) 21:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks so much Dan100, I really appreciate the objective view; Brian, sorry I used the word "vandalism"; obviously I was out of line with that usage. Neutralizer 17:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the apology, I was also out of line with the change on NPOV, but I thought I was acting with good intentions. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Article merge comments

My apologies for misunderstanding the process for merging, re: "Thaksin stands down for national unity" and "Thailand's Prime Minister announces resignation". I am new to Wikinews (though am active on Wikipedia). I asked at the Watercooler about the process of merging and did not get a reference on the standard process for merging. I did not mean to step out of process. Again, please accept my apologies for misunderstanding. —ERcheck @ 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem, end result is the same. I'll queue up the obsolete article on DR later today. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Brian McNeil/Archive 02".