User talk:Brian McNeil/Archive 04

Latest comment: 17 years ago by Urameshi2 in topic RE:One Question

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

Listing a Scientology organisation on a relief page

Hello Brian, why has my organization Scientology Volunteer Ministers been removed from Europian Aid organizations? We are a very legitimate volunteer organization that offers relief to people all over the world. Please explain.

Scientology is not recognised as a religion and is in fact labelled as a dangerous cult in many European countries. If you wish the opinion of the community, bring the issue up on the Water Cooler --Brian McNeil / talk 09:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Per the US government we are a bonafide religion, as well as MANY european countries, you are completely unfounded in your accusation of my religion being a cult, and frankly its very offensive. Do you even know the definition of a cult? I'm sorry but we do not fit the description, so essentially all you're doing is religiously discriminating people trying to help those suffering from disasters. Wow. PREVIOUS UNSIGNED COMMENT BY User:Jessewpool

No, you aren't being discriminated against. Most European governments don't recognize Scientology as a legitimate religion and they are only recognized in the US by Proxy (and given a status given to multiple non-religious organizations). To be a religious European aid organization, you have to be recognized as a religion there. The US isn't European, Australia isn't European. It's not discrimination to report fact, even if it makes your organization look bad. PREVIOUS UNSIGNED COMMENT BY User:

Slight problem with an intruder

Dear Friend, Can you help?....A guy with the address makes changes in a recent article of mine because...according to him doesn't have a neutral point of view. He cannot change it from "Published" to "Disputed" every time he/she likes, without any expressed opinion in the Talk page. It's ridiculous:) Can you put this address in blacklist? Thanks anyway. :) Zorba 00:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've warned the user. It takes a little more then that to get blocked, but If he/her continues they will be blocked. Bawolff ☺☻  00:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

ok, thank you...Zorba 00:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you take a look at this article? This is an extremely important development, and has international importance. I would like to see it in one of the leads if there isn't anything current (and that includes 3rd lead). - Amgine | talk en.WN 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Put up as second lead, you can do this yourself from the Workspace link on the left and the worst that can happen is you get reverted. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
/me smacks himself for not looking more closely at the sig, pretty sigs aren't easy to read in a diff. :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 20:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about the capitalization in the naming - I think I got a couple of the double redirects before you - but you're too fast for me :) 20:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just one question

What's the problem with War Crimes as category ? Just too know Jacques Divol 20:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

because it already exists .... :) Jacques Divol 20:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
The capitalisation was an issue for this article, this is a low-level crime that does not significantly involve the chain of command. As such it is covered by what little civil law exists in the area and there's actually a story in the fact that the report wasn't passed on. I gave examples of similar subject material that's covered with Crime and law plus Human rights, I don't think we need a new category, but if we have one then I've added a few articles from last month that fit - by my understanding of the term. I'd rather see the category go away as it strikes me as creeping towards being encyclopedic, with the associated "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" debates about what categories are appropriate for controverial articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


Hi Brian, I have guessed that the IWWC has ended now (from my calculations Jason has ran out of jokers). Our two judges are away and I thought that as you are the one providing the prizemoney that you might like to continue the judging :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

If that's what you want to do that is OK, I think there was meant to be a split but can't recall the details. In anycase, the competition should be finished - my calculations are that all over competitors ran out of jokers.
Thats the right split, so it should be me 33.30, Jason 22.20 and PVJ 11.10. My paypal is :)
My PayPal is Thanks. ;-) PVJ   (Talk)(Opinions) 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the prize and your kind comments. I am going to take a break from article writing (I am a little burned out at present) for a week or so and shall return then :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 01:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Unhappy with standards

I'm unhappy. I want to be happy. I understand PVJ is upset that I want to take his administrator privileges away but there is no need for bad behaviour in front of other members of the community. PVJ has now thrown accusations around that I am "aggressive" and "rude" when I am neither. I have made no personal attacks in working space or been rude as you can see here It is not fair on me as a wikinews contributor to continue to work and take this abuse from someone with the status of "administrator" - whose status is under review. I understand PVJ has your full confidence and that is why I am bringing this to your attention. I really hate doing this but as a trained journalist you might realise I'm very unhappy and frustrated with PVJ's behaviour and basic level of journalistic understanding. Ealturner 18:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will have words with PJV to try and help bring some resolution to this situation. I know how easy it is to get entrenched in a particular position and start firing pot-shorts at each other. To my mind you are both good contributors, and whilst you hold wildly different political viewpoints you both want to see the project succeed. I'd like to see all the dispute on RfDA vanish and a simple discussion over the points where you disagreed. I intervened on the followup article to offer some structure to title changes and, whilst the result was like herding cats, a conflict was avoided.
Please continue any discussion over the conflict where you'd like me to referee here, remember I've not looked at all the diffs and absorbed all the talk page discussions, I just want to see people reach some understanding of each other so they can more effectively communicate. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Brianmc, thank you for doing this. It is good of you to go out of your way and give time to help resolve this issue. While I remain convinced PVJ is far away from an "administrator" level I am prepared to forgive his mistakes. I'd like PVJ to know I'm on his side as I want to work with him. I like the fact people come at the world from another angle and spot things I don't. So just because we disagree sometimes does not mean I necessarily object to PVJ as an administrator or writer. I'm convinced people with POV can write NPOV way. I'm sure PJV can do his POV justice if he learns being NPOV requires a methodology that can spot POV rather than a particular set of beliefs. I'm sorry if you already know this; feel free to shoot me down. Trying to get off on a constructive footing. PVJ feel free to give me your view on how I can help. Ealturner 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have an interesting background when it comes to discussion forums on the Internet, and from reading PVJ's comments on Ealturner's talk page and elsewhere, I'd say he does not have that experience. I don't think we should force him to spend six months on Usenet to learn how to state his position without upsetting people, but on the other hand I think as an administrator PVJ has to be more forgiving in what he recieves (per RFCs. :-)). --Brian McNeil / talk 19:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whether one "upsets people" is indeed relevant to one's fitness as an administrator. Administrators are a representative of wikinews to wider public. We need to encourage people not put them off; criticisms must be contructive, show how the individual can improve. But perhaps just as relevant as one's tact is whether one knows what the role of administrator actually requires. Evidence so far is PVJ combines an ability to upset with what even his supporters have admitted is a "still learning" approach to his administration duties. Ealturner 20:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Brian, thanks for taking this on. My own observation has been that Ealturner is a prolific productive contributor but sometimes (not always) very,very difficult to work with collaberatively and I can provide difs to show that if need be. My point is that the discussion should not be focused on PVJ,imo, but rather more of a typical dispute resolution procedure where the 2 of them can resolve their issues and maybe BOTH of them learn how to contribute more peacefully and less confrontatively.Neutralizer 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
//very,very difficult to work with collaberatively and I can provide difs to show that if need be.// Can you show this? Sometimes I find you very difficult. These may be the same times :) Such as times when you try to shoehorn reality to fit your definitions, such as calling a week or so raid of Israel an "invasion". Or when PVJ puts explicit prisoner abuse images from an Abu Graibh article in an article not about Abu Graibh, prisoners, abuse etc. Just because someone's an administrator that does not mean they're right. If you want I will teach you how to hold a neutral point of view. There's a specific way and anyone can do it. Ealturner 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

A brief synopsis of events

I first ran into Ealturner on the discusssion-page of the Iraq rape article. On the talk-page, thnigs got a bit heated and I made a rather rude comment to a user asking him if he was "mentally" capable" of understanding the points I was trying to make. After this, an edit-war ensued which resulted in both Ealturner and me being eventually blocked for 17 or so hours. I subsequently apologised to Ealturner and admitted that as an Administrator, I should have maintained my cool. Ealturner went on to put an RfDA against me citing various reasons as to why I am not fit to hold this position. Among those justifications was the fact that I display my "political manifesto" on my userpage. This in itself seems irregular as opinions-pages are ofen used and do not reflect on one's capabilities as an Administrator. After this, I ran into Ealturner on the Israel article, where he was referring to another other user's choice of title as "ugly". Here I once again reminded him of the importance on civility. I have so far not used my Administrator status to affect him in any way and all my advice to him has been given in a polite, civil manner. PVJ(Talk)  01:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I meant "ugly" in a gramatical sense. Israel;Entering... doesn't exactly look right together does it? It's wrong: that's what I meant by "ugly," it was wrong. Sorry if that choice of word was offensive to you but it was a way to make a grammatical point, no harm intended. That is in fact a good example where you have overreacted to inappropriately censure someone, creating a hostile atmosphere where there was none.
Though I'm constantly at his throat with his inappropriate use of the English Language I'm getting on a bit better with Neutralizer. We've worked together in the Israel/Hezbollah thread and on some points achieved a little mutual understanding.
There were three reasons I cited why I did not think you were doing your job. You have addressed one of my issues, partially. By partially I mean your beliefs and opinions page was an example of what I called your POV bias. There are other examples. But, if I remember, as user Cspurrior said, the main thrust of my complaint was that you misused your powers. Do you admit you misused your powers and that was wrong? Ealturner 02:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Neutralizer 3rr title violation


On the day after concensus reached. Against protests in discussion. Ealturner 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please also note Neutralise "NPOV'd" this article[2]. There were no complaints for hours before the article was made top headline.

Neutralizer calls the title "Totally 1 sided as well as inflammatory and sensationalist"

The title is "Israeli railroad station bombed. 8 killed, 23 injured"

Please do something about this individual. He is making work impossible. I don't want to leave but I will not take much more of this. Ealturner 13:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

PVJ: Harassment notice; four reverts; edit protected page II

PVJ left a harassment notice on my talk page. [3]

I find this unnecessary. My second request for deadministration was based on the fact he broke the three revert rule. This is a third abuse to add to his previous two abuses. The de-admin request was removed by another admin, Amgine, who said PVJ had abused his editor privilege. When I made the request I was not aware of the difference. To abuse the rules of wikinews when one is an administrator is surely to abuse one's position as administrator also? The let off for his two administrator abuses has emboldened him. Ealturner 17:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Four reverts Civilian casualties increase as Israel-Hezbollah conflict continues. Ealturner 18:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

The above page was protected by an administrator because PVJ broke the three revert rule. Now PVJ has since edited the protected page to leave the following

"Sysops please note:This article has been protected due to edit-warring."

Since the protected page was disabled to editors there was no need to edit it. It is another example - the fourth - of PVJ abusing his administrator powers. Ealturner 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Audiences and Independent Journalists in Eurasia lose another Voice of America outlet for exchanging views with the U.S.

Hello Brian,

I have removed sources from the body of the article and placed them at the end. Regards (Tedlipien 00:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC).)Reply

Nice work on the Israel/Lebanon info box

Looks really sharp; best yet,imo. Neutralizer 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I expected it to become a focus of disputes, but instead everyone is using it properly. Whaddya know, sometimes a well-intentioned contribution has more value than you initially thought. :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Light aircraft makes emergency landing in major industrial estate

Note: Valleysnews has since apologized for the legal threat he has made below.this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You have removed the image displayed without first having consulted me. While this is perhaps the whole idea behind WikiNews, i.e. the ability for users to create and edit new stories, I firmly believe that you have completely over-stepped the mark by accusing me of copyright violation.

As deputy editor of VTV (the source of the image), I am authorised to distribute any and all media images, stories, etc. as part of my employment. Furthermore, I actually created the image concerned for use in the VTV Wales subscription e-mail service.

I have written consent, from my employer, to distribute such media and would advise you to refrain from accusing me of copyright violation, as such an allegation is potentially damaging and at best, libellous.

Had you even bothered to first ask me the source of the image, I would have advised you of my authority to distribute the image. Instead, you decided to act unilaterally and without good reason.

I am putting the file back on the page and if you further persist in accusing me of being in breach of copyright laws, I shall seek legal recourse. UNSIGNED COMMENT BY User:Valleysnews

If you created the image change it to CC-By as the copyright message or send me a legitimate email from an address at your employer along with a press contact email address whereby I can verify you have the right to make the claims you are making. Otherwise I'll assume you're making legal threats and block you for waving your appendage in public. Oh, and read the welcome message, it's nice to sign your comments so I know who to flame. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Valleysnews has been warned for his/her legal threat. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Valleysnews apologises

See User talk:Messedrocker#Light aircraft makes emergency landing in major industrial estate. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Not sure of all that is going on there behind the scenes. People do have a way way of making their intentions known, that's what's important. -Edbrown05 21:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

VTV licence

Hi Brian. I have just spoken with Simon Goodall, CEO of VTV and Katherine Bartlet, Head of News at VTV Wales and she has agreed to release any and all images, as well as related articles, to WikiNews as public domain and free of copyright.

The reason for this is simple; VTV Wales is one of the region's largest subscription news providers and although we rely on continued business, from our clients, we feel that news stories which have a broad, national and international appeal, should be made available to the public, free of charge.

Can I, or some other trusted person (accredited or administrator) have an email on this from a believeable address with a legal contact to confirm this? It's really that simple, and anything else you say on the site doesn't matter a whit. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have already given you Katherine's postal address. However, I do understand that you wish to receive an e-mail from her and to that end, I will ask her to confirm her and Robert Goodall's authorisation by e-mail to you. You may have to wait until tomorrow though, as both of them are probably tucked up in their beds right now.

Re: Eeep! No!

Done :-) --Jambalaya 22:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

canadian deaths

i've made some changes to Four children among six Canadians killed in Israeli attack on Lebanon. cld u take a look and leave any comments u may have. thnx, Doldrums 18:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good edit here

Thanks. For the thoughtful effort. -Edbrown05 07:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

But what does that paragraph mean now, anything? I get cotton candy at the ballpark where who wins or loses doesn't matter. I didn't know news was about cotton candy. -Edbrown05 07:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't quite get this, and I do think it is important that wikinews shouldn't care who wins or loses. What I couldn't find was a clear reference to link Hezbollah to Syria and thus link them into the conflict. So what you have is a sourced piece of background where before it was someone's opinion on the conflict's background. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Brian, I've been grouchy and a bit angry during my recent visits to this site for reasons that have to do with nothing of the goings on here... so sorry that my 2nd comment above came out the way it did. I didn't care to continue pursuing a Hezbollah/Syria/Iran connection because I wasn't fully confident, and remain so, that a scenario ventured by this article was anything more than a media being spun. However, something in my gut tells me the article speaks some truth. If major global players get sucked into this Israel-Lebanon mess, which is seeming by each day less likely, it would or could be World War III. Best regards, -Edbrown05 07:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I wouldn't be surprised if some intrepid reporter dug up clear details linking some of the Arab nations to supporting Hezbollah, but the problem is that the accusations that this is the case are all embedded in blogs and finding the one that actually sources the allegation in a way we can use is a nightmare. Before you find it you're convinced the world is full of conspiracy theorists or you've bought the conspiracy theory. What troubles me is the people who primarilly rely on blogs then try to write here, even if they try to go to sources there is still the underlying decision on which side of a dispute is right that the blog - in its effort to get readers - usually has adopted. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hello Brian,

Sorry, but I didn't quite understand your message to me. Could you please elaborate?

Thanks very much, Mick.

Mick 20:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you

Thank you very much for your kind comments, Brian. As for the negative comments I've received, I see them as constructive criticism so it's all good!

Adding fuel to the fire?

Brianmc, with the recent conflicts going on throughout Wikinews, comments like "tough shit" only add fuel to the fire. It is in the best interest of Wikinews if these conflicts are put behind us and we all work TOGETHER to make this a better news source. MyName 23:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply


  • Yes, but if you count how many revisions were restored that's how many times I had clicked to restore one, there were thousands more and I'd probably still be at it now. If a mechanism to select all then de-select the offending edits is introduced I will fix the situation. Otherwise people should archive their talk page in some manner. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dispute Resolution Step 2

Hi, I have begun the Dispute Resolution process with you,Brian. I attempted step 1 by "avoidance" and have now moved to Step 2, the talk page. I feel confident that we can deal with this without going past step 2; at least I hope so. May I suggest that we not be too abrasive or hurtful in our comments? My only suggestion is that we try to stay away from each other. Some of your comments toward me both in article discussions and elsewhere are quite personal and assumptive as to my motives or what you claim is an "agenda". If what you say has any merit, I am sure other editors will notice and get involved so perhaps you could allow them that role. Chiacomo, for example, misses very little and he is able to criticize and/or edit without using "fuck you" or "tough shit" in his edit summaries. When you are at the point of permanently deleting edits of many editors because of some alleged song lyrics copyvio (not sure if you ever decided who,if anyone,held the copyright) then I think your apparent obsession with me has gone too far and is,in fact, an abuse of administrative authority,imo.

Posting the lyrics of an entire song is a copyright violation, period. As you can see here the Recording Industry is activly cracking down on sites which offer lyrics. As you know very well, to keep Wikimedia out of legal harm we have to delete copyright infringments as soon as we take notice of them. Alleging an "abuse of administrative authority" on Brian's part is preposterous. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Brian's "tough shit" edit summary along with his permanent removal of many other non-problem edits made by many different editors is the abuse I refer to.
"22:12, 24 July 2006 Brianmc (Talk | contribs) restored "User talk:Neutralizer" (628 revisions restored: tough shit there's a pile missing, should have archived before you introduced a copyvio)"
  • I will not be distracted. My purpose here is step 2 DR. so I prefer to have this discussion with Brian. If my choice of words above is a problem then I can strike them if Brian strikes his "tough shit" wording on the edit summary; Actually that might be a good way to get going on a constructive DR. Neutralizer 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I am sorry that the edit summary offends you, and as I have stated above I will remedy the situation if a mechanism to select all is made available and I can then de-select the edits containing the copyvio. None of the other administrators attempted to remove the copyvio because I think they realised how horrid a task it would be and, after clicking 628 tiny little checkboxes I gave up. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I understand; just for clarification; do quotes from copyrighted material also create a copyvio? Also, what do you think we can do to help reduce the friction that I think we have between us ? Perhaps the "friction" is just my imagination but, in any event, I would like us to get along better. Neutralizer 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
  • I suspect the friction between us is a bit of mutual distrust and suspicion, for the copyvio all versions containing the copyvio text have to go. What should have happened is you cut the copyvio and I deleted the page and restored all the versions leaving the comments and some indication of what was deleted, but it really is a horror story to do that with a never-archived high-traffic talk page. I suspect MessedRocker did his own form for the restore that had all checkboxes set and the offending edits could be de-selected.
For avoiding future conflict, I don't know. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that a news-based wiki is going to see conflict on a regular basis and people need to take things a little less personally. My "tough shit" comment was meant in the vein of "if you had to do this job you'd do just what I did", not as an insult. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Quoting copyright material is fine, as long as you have some basis whereby you can say it is "fair use", and a limited selection from the source material. So, you could have quoted a couple of lines from the song, and as is sort-of common round here sourced to the original author (I don't care which blood-sucking member of the RIAA currently owns the copyright). --19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, what I simply did was determined the versions with the copyright infringement, not selected those, and selected all the other ones manually. It was tiring, but that's what I wanted (I needed to go to sleep early that night). The subsequent messages that were added while the copyright infringement was on the page were manually restored by myself. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think you deserve a merit badge for masochism for that Messedrocker. :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 20:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Step 2 DR; suggestion #1.

Brian, perhaps you can strike your "tough shit" edit summary and advise me if I have said anything to you which you would like me to strike? Neutralizer 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Edit summaries are not currently editable in the database. - Amgine | talk en.WN 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok; thanks for info. Neutralizer 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll just accept Brian's view that there will always be some conflict and we'll just plow ahead as best we can; That works for me, especially as I now see the "tough shit" wasn't used by Brian in the way I assumed it was....assumptions really do suck (at least assumptions I make seem to always be wrong or largely wrong). Neutralizer 23:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: Portugal receives Russian aerial firefighting airplane

Hi Brian,
The error seems to be due to a lost of text during an revision of the article. The numbers in the article were from an article in Portuguese [4], which cited the book "Portugal: o vermelho e o negro" ("Portugal: the red and the black") by Pedro Almeida Vieira. The article cites 3.2 million hectares as the amount of existent forest in 1995, and states one fifth was destroyed in only then years (1995-2005). The other 2.5 million hectares correspond to the existing forest in 2005.

Thank you and best regards. -- Get_It 22:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

why this revert?

any particular reason for reverting Fidel Castro temporarily hands power to his brother Raul. it was a legitimate edit, in case u thought it was vandalism or link spamming or some-such. Doldrums 18:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I saw the weird domain, checked the site and it looked garish and I reverted. Now I look again I see it is a .cu domain, so the only thing I'd ask before saying undo my revert is, how long will the material stay on their site? --Brian McNeil / talk 18:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
hmmm, but, on the other hand, it is the source "closer to home". Doldrums 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

apollo tapes

shall we unprotect the talk page? i have left a note on the user talk page about not refactoring/removing comments on the talk page & deprifry has asked the user for some info about the article. Doldrums 16:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Talk pages are not protected when you protect the article, so it never has been protected. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
oops! mistook the edit summary of ur talk page edit noting the article protection. Doldrums 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just saying hi

Hello there!

waw, Europe is represented by the UK and Belgium! I'm from Belgium too, where exactly are you from and do you speak Dutch or French?

I was wondering if you could give me some advice about writing about news from Belgium: I've made some contributions about Kim Gevaert but I wonder how far I can go in reporting about Belgian news...

hope to cu around, grtz --Stevenfruitsmaak 12:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thought that planets article was a long one eh...--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 10:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes I want to write in-depth articles on scientific (and other) subjects. But it's difficult to balance this with writing for the Average Reader, I'm still strugling at this point.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 16:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

can u come on/are u on IRC?

Doldrums 16:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Joined but you got disconnected - can't stay long either. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
its pretty much been sorted out (Wikinews:Admin action alerts). Doldrums 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply


So is it ok if I only use it for non-news sources, like scientific journals,,...? I do it cause I come from Wikipedia of course.

I also find it rather frustrating that you're obliged to use the newspaper-template to cite any source, even if it isn't a newspaper. I'd prefer if I could use a more scientific referencing system for scientific sources.

I understand your concern but I think the challenge is to just make a good article. Anyway I'd expect people to read wikinews not because their looking to read the same story on another newssite. Thx anyway for the advice I'm still learning...--Stevenfruitsmaak 11:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

So is it ok if I only use footnotes for non-news sources, like scientific journals,,...? The benefit is easier fact-checking, and I think it is unlikely readers will click away to read a statement of the surgeon-general...
And what if the newspaper source is not about the general subject of the article, but about something that is only a side-issue, is it ok to use in-text footnotes then?
Is there a policy or guideline about this topic I should read that you're referring to?--Stevenfruitsmaak 11:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'll try to respect existing conventions, but I think it's different because it's kind of scientific news. If you want everything to be referenced, than maybe there should be some exceptions to the unwritten rule of not using footnotes but only sources. I like that system, on Wikipedia it gives you a good distinction between sources you've used for the general article, and sources you've used to check specific facts. I'd like to keep using it because it has advantages I think, and I don't think many people will click away if there are enough footnotes also to different kinds of non-newsarticle-resources. But maybe there are other reasons or if you oppose strongly to it, I'll drop it.
Instructions can be easier for new guys like me :-) .--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 11:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Great work

Hey Brianmc
You are doing a great work on the german Wikinews. Thank you for setting all the interwiki. If you didn't do it, we would have do deal with it. Greetings from Germany. Tilmandralle 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not picking up all the languages though, just trying to make a start on it. I've done jan-mar '05 and '06 on en., jan-mar '06 on sv., and jan-mar '06 on de. I'm going to take a break before doing es. and fr. :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 15:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Maybe we should programme a bot for that purpose, shouldn't we? Greetings, Tilmandralle 21:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
It should be two bots - one to fix all existing cats, one to do a new day creation. This is part of the reason I've been doing it across various wikis. I can work out most of what needs done, but I don't have the tools at my disposal to automate the process. If someone who knows how to automate the process sees me doing it, they may be prompted to help. Anyway, if f there's someone on the German wiki can code up a bot to do this I think all wikis would accept it. I suspect it is more than just wikinews that needs a new day creation bot, many pictures in commons and articles in wikipedia should have a specific date category. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

is this ok?

have not removed par box and unrelated "apartheid" comment from Chavez equates Israel invasion of Lebanon and occupation of Palestine with Nazi oppression of Jews prior to archiving. Doldrums 07:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I combined the two pars boxes into one and moved it into the sources. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)Reply


i'll try and do the cleanup soon after publish, that way, i think i'll be able to copyedit a little more freely. i also have this thing about ordering cats in this way: topical cats first, 'location' regional cat and other regions involved. for each of the three, the more specific category precedes the top-level one. Doldrums 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Locked article


could you add Category:Science and technology to Study says dogs can smell lung and breast cancer?

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 17:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Can you give the whole thing a check? I did the move of inline links to sources as well and... well it was a lot, I'd like you to make sure I've not lost anything or left dupe sources. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
You haven't, thanks a lot. But now I've got another request: could you change the references to the ones that are waiting in my sandbox? I've used Template:Source-science to cite the scientific articles.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 16:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

BBC News

i don't think it's "Online", as far as i can see from the the main page, the contact page and the about page. they all list just say BBC News. Doldrums 19:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

The difference is the wikilink you get in the {{source}} template, that's why I keep changing it. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)Reply


Where did you get a version of AWB that works with Wikinews? I want it! —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't answer my question! :( —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Is that for the specific Wikinews edition of AWB? —this is messedrocker (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome messages

Users - regular users - also welcome new users that didn't make any edits. FellowWikiNews (W) 20:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

As I said, I used to. If I see other people doing it immediately after an account is created I'll give them the same suggestion - don't do it until the user has made an edit and you can decide which welcome is appropriate. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Okay. FellowWikiNews (W) 20:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Revert of Neutralizer

I noticed that you reverted one of Neutralizer's edits. If it violates his parole (outlined here), be sure to warn him. —this is messedrocker (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, couple of things. How do the tenplates screw up in FF? In mine it looks fine (on a 17" screen and smaller)., it may well juet be the template ordering! See the other Israeli article today - does that do the same thing? As to a second source it is very recent news from reuters so might take a while to get throught to other news agencies - AP have not yet got an article up so CNN, BBC etc,. wont have much for at least an hour :D --Errant 19:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok got a rewritten version from agency that feed from reuters raw reports. Will that be ok? I published again but pull it back if not. Ill search come more. --Errant 19:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
oops sorry I meant it was an AP feed. The AP report should surface soon now :D --Errant 19:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
The two templated don't overlap on the other article, but it looks ugly having them against each other and a step down on the right side of the page. I'm using a 19" 1280x1024 monitor, but I never have my browser window fullscreen.
From a personal point of view I'd prefer to actually see the breaking template reserved for things that will develop significantly over a period of hours and have serious interest. As an example, the Buncefield depot explosion. In a case like the Annan "secret" negotiator I'd prefer to see an hour or two delay for collaboration and additional research. I don't like seeing articles with a publish tag bouncing from one title to another as details become more clear.
Two sources minimum is an unwritten rule that we're discussing making more formal. Likely result is some vaguely worded guidelines stating the longer the article the more sources are required.
And as a last point, you might want to grab the Google toolbar or some other Firefox plugin that has a spell checker, I think I saw a typo or two in there. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Typos are a something ypoo'll have to put up with with me Im afraid - mild dyslexia and the inability to use simple tools (eg google toolbar) are major failings :D Anyway I will clean it up - I see what you mean though about the breaking template too, I will use it less often in the future.
As to the surcing, 2 articles can be ok but it is possible to get a story off reuters like that up to 2 hrs before it gets reported anywhere else (although the BBC ttend to be quick in putting up a stub). I see the thinking though. Is there a policy discussion about it somewhere I can join in? --Errant 19:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
See the Water cooler for all sorts of discussion on how things should operate. The specific discussion on minimum sources is at /policy#Sources Policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

archivin August 29

hi, just to let u know that i've cleaned up for archiving, articles from 2 to F in the list in cat:August 29. however, FBI most-wanted fugitive, polygamist Warren Jeffs, arrested needs a date-bump or needs stuff taken out. i've noted the same in the summary and have not done either. Doldrums 04:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Blocked User

In fact one of the users had wrote humiliating remarks for the admin (myself) in the Sandbox, without signing in. I had blocked the IP and not the user ID. I have already unblock his IP address after he sent me an appology on my personal email. 07:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for the hint. Also, please don't take any diagreement between us on issues at the Watercooler personally. :-)PVJ(Talk)  01:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't, and hope you don't either - we just see things differently --Brian McNeil / talk 06:22, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kindly help me know how to ...

Kindly help know how to have following options in Sindhi Wikipedia which one finds in English Wikipedia at the bottom of every page:

Insert: – — … ° ≈ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your name: 13:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

But I would like to have these in Sindhi. 13:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to note this here on my talk page (if you create an account here it'll be easier, I only recently discovered how to do this. Here on wikinews it would be Special:allpages where you'd look for MediaWiki:Edittools, this uses <charinsert>, example:

<charinsert>Á á É é Í í Ó ó Ú ú Ý ý</charinsert> ·

<charinsert>—Brian McNeil / talk 14:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)</charinsert ·Reply

Editing messages can be odd, if you haven't overridden the default you're presented with a blank page, it would be a very good idea to copy the default text listed on wikipedia:sd:Special:allpages when you want to edit wikipedia:sd:Special:Edittools (unfortunately this last link doesn't work - you'll have to pick one off the allpages link that corresponds. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The current one on obesity is a bit outdated, may I suggest Extremely drug-resistant tuberculosis strain emerges in South Africa? I've worked a lot on it myself so I don't want to change it myself, if you concur could you tell me or change it? Thanks, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

collapsing disputed and developing

I disagree with this change on the main page. I look at the disputed and developing stories to see if I can contribute. To me they are as important as the published articles. TRWBW 12:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Moving comment to talk of main page. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nazi Pope

It was decided yesterday on the talk-page of that article that we need not hide the Pope's Nazi background or his previous abusive comments against Islam. Since you were not involved in that discussion, please do not revert my changes without providing adequate justifications on the talk-page. PVJ(Talk)  12:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Note also that it has been mentioned that membership in that organisation was "compulsory" at the time, and that Ratzinger was an "unwilling" member. PVJ(Talk)  12:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please read WN:WEASEL which I linked to it was an absolutely awful way of putting that, and it implied that the Pope made comments critical of Islam because of that aspect of his background. If you cannot show there is a link you should not be implying there is one. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I do not respect this (Nazi) man or the religion he represents, so I do not feel the need to retract my statements. As for "devout" Catholics being offended by my comments, I too am offended by what the Nazi has to say about the Prophet. The "Kommandant" part was possibly erroneous however, since I doubt whether he was competent enough to be promoted to that rank. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   13:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Whilst you are entitled to your opinion that the man is not worthy of respect, you still have to respect the position of authority he has been put in by the Catholic church. If you can't keep your opinions in check, you should avoid contributing to articles where the man is mentioned. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have already told you that I am not a Catholic, so I couldn't care less about any position of authority this man may have been put in, be it by the Catholic church or the Nazi party. We have had to put up with a lot of Islamophobia, and this was the last straw. As I have already mentioned, I will not be writing any more articles for some time to come. PVJ(Talk)(Articles I have written)   14:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm new to Wikinews and a little confused by the note you placed on the above article. Why can't material be copied from Wikipedia? Seabhcan 17:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome to Wikinews! The reason we can't have stuff copied to Wikinews is because we want as many Original contributions as we can. This will help increase our reputation. Plus, we can't have ©ed material on Wikinews. Thunderhead(talk) 06:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, please see my comment on the article's talk page, there are certain license incompatibilties between Wikipedia and Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)Reply


Could you make the various weird list boxes on the right collapsible, and restore the developing stories to that column? They're completely useless so far down on the page, so it makes little sense to have them collapsible there. - Amgine | m | en.WN 21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've done an alternative design that shortens the page enough to make the developing and disputed more accessible. What do you think? It'd involve getting Craig's bot to do the Latest news that way. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
<nods> That could be done... too bad the collapsed dates must be full-column width but I can't think how to avoid that. (of course, to be honest I'd still rather see the tool higher up on the right column, but that's not necessarily better for readers.) - Amgine | m | en.WN 02:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

nice work with the collapsible boxes. i like the idea of using them on the main page. i do have a slightly different set of things which i want to make collapsible, though: This day last year, older Latest news days, sister projects and wikinews in other languages, possibly the regional portal links (we might be able to add topical portal links to the main page too, that way), OR and interviews (keeping the latest one (or very recent ones) visible, hiding older ones). making the disputed and developing boxes both the same length by hiding part of whichever is longer. in short, a big fat main page redesign... Doldrums 07:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

can u get on to IRC? Doldrums 07:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Accreditation requests

Hey, leave your vote at Wikinews:Accreditation requests. Thanks! terinjokes User Page / Talk 10:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply


My idea and you are the same. I also think interwiki links is important. I'll leave message on Water cooler of Chinese Wikinews and Wikipedia board of PTT(Most Taiwan wikipedian and some Hong Kong wikipedian like to discuss on this board.).--Yoshi 17:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

World Wars lowered New Zealanders life expectancy

You changed the above article from World Wars lowered New Zealand's life expectancy moved to World Wars lowered New Zealanders life expectancy. Your reason to do so was this "It didn't lower the life expectancy of the country, but of its residents. I'd use Kiwis, but I'm not sure if that is restricted to the Ab". By Ab do you mean the All Blacks and if so, the answer is no. No it is not restricted to just the AB's. --Nzgabriel | Article list | Talk 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

My much more verbose comment that the wiki software cut off was "Aborigine people". Basically is anyone and everyone in NZ a "Kiwi", or are there restrictions on the term. If possible I would have preferred to use World Wars lowered Kiwis life expectancy as a shorter title, the reason I didn't was that I was unsure it was correct usage of the term. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kiwi is the nickname used internationally for people from New Zealand. The name derives from the flightless bird native to New Zealand, the national bird. The first New Zealanders to be widely known as kiwis were the military.

So yes, if you are a New Zealander then you are also called, colloquially, a Kiwi. --Nzgabriel | Article list | Talk 03:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Portal:Ottawa, Ontario

I really don't think that merits the geo-portal treatment, after all the lead you've put up is months old. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's the capital of my country, and portals encourage people from the area to take an active role in Wikinews, since they think "they love my town!", which is always good. Don't worry, I don't plan to create more portals anytime soon. -- Zanimum 19:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
If you can get it kept up to date, good on you. I think I'd customise it a little to de-emphasise the lack of a full city news team to put new stuff up. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Could you do me a favour and delete these?

They're my userspace subpages which should be deleted.

- Amgine | m | en.WN 21:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

opinion on copyvio

cld u take a look at Death penalty for sex offender, in USA/Temp. it appears to me to be a copyvio of the cnn source, slightly better than the currently blanked original article (i.e., the non-/Temp article). i'd like another opinion on this. thanks, Doldrums 08:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

dyn nav

short answers are no . no. i can't figure out why it should behave differently on the same version of Fx on different machines. Doldrums 16:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Reply


hi, thanks for the tip. am currently not using AWB as i don't have whatever flavour of .Net thingy it needs. when (if) i ever feel up to downloading and installing that, then mebbe... but thanks for reminding, anyway.

btw, (asking u this since u've done archiving for a long time) any ideas on how we can do better than what we do now - catch bugs in articles a fortnight after it gets published? Doldrums 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

RE:One Question

I requested a rename. Do I have to change my preference's again, or will my name just be changed? Thunderhead(talk) 17:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Brian McNeil/Archive 04".