User talk:Chiacomo/Archive 3

Latest comment: 16 years ago by Bawolff in topic Hi

Change Username Request


Hi, I have a change username request. --Kgargar 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Archive 1 - October 11, 2005 - Archive 2 - January 23, 2006

Please start a new section by clicking here or clicking "add comment" above.
Replies to your comments will be posted here!

Please reply at Kubby talk page...


Thanks again for the help


I didn't get the source template thing at all (tried to use it inline, it was making a mess, lol). StrangerInParadise 04:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bad cleanup tag


May need some help: an anonymous editor has placed a clean up tag on the Kubby article. I reverted, and don't want an edit war just now. The article is in a very well-sourced, clean state, and I can't tell him to take it to the talk page regarding is specific concern, as his talk page is locked. As far as credibility, to put a cleanup tag on is the moral equivalent to unpublishing it, if not worse. Please advice. StrangerInParadise 19:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply



The Arbcom selection process is completed, and you have been chosen by the community to serve in this role. Hopefully you won't have anything to do but twiddle your thumbs, but good on you anyway! - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, Congrats. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

This may be your first ArbCom matter


Apparently, I was blocked on Wikinews! This admin, Mrmiscellanious blocked me without warning for 3RR on the Kubby article until 21:55 1 Feb. Worse, I did not violate 3RR! It gets better, this admin is flatly anti-cannabis, and invoked the rule in an article he was clearly trying to exercise editorial control over. Now it is full of typos, and I can neither fix it nor appeal to an admin capable of counting to four. Incandescent does not begin to describe my state of mind, and I have gone through several cups of tea. BTW, here is my last version

"As he shivers in a cold cell in the Sierra foothills, his fears are now being realized."


The main bone of contention was this phrase which is a fact well-documented by several sources. Two separate people cut the line, saying it is either unsupported or too emotional. WTF! Neutral does not mean neutered! I had several other admins comment on how well-sourced the article was. In fact, it was well-sourced in its very first draft (thanks in large part to Timeshifter). At my request, you and others gave ongoing guidance as to issues of form. As I am locked out, I cannot appeal to any of them. My voicemail to Mrmiscellanious went unanswered.

Speaking of sources, there was some issue about footnotes inline, which I had in the first draft, which you put- I thought- in the prefered form. Also,

The key reason for this was the fact that these inline links pushed a specific position, an action which is contrary to NPOV. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous. The links establish facts cited in the article. Most are transcripts, government reports, and other news articles. The facts are often quotes from the principle in the story. How can one quote anyone and escape this notion of POV? I would like to have seen a specific example, but as I was locked out of the site, and the article renegotiated on IRC (access to which medium was unknown to be a requirement), neither I nor Timeshifter- the pricipal researchers and authors- had any means of participating. Can you say admin cabal?

Adding material


There was some issue about adding material as it came in. I made my explanations and asked for advice. It put me in a catch-22, as Chipuni added a comment on why Kubby was arrested which (only for being incomplete) added bias, but to add a fuller explanation would be, well, adding more information and opening a whole new window on government malfesance. I gave him sources and suggested he write a new article.

BTW, I don't understand this comment:

you are pushing the POV of this article by repeately expanding on Kubby's medical condition. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why was adding information as it came in was somehow biased or POV- the information was all convergent. Neutralizer mentions supportively that I am passionate about this issue. Read the article and transcripts on Kubby's conversations with people from this weekend: if you don't feel passionate, check your pulse. All things considered, my treatment was fairly clinical.

Editorial cleanup


Prior admin guidance notwithstanding, This article has been nominated for editorial cleanup, that is, an editor considers it not to be publishable in its current form. The following reason has been cited: "Please move all external links to the sources section." You OK'ed having them there in the first place, per the wikinews style guide, all captured on the talk page. Sticking something like this on an article is almost worse than unpublishing it, as it undermines its credibility. This was the second time, where the first time DragonFire1024 had said it was not needed (can't tell whether he is an admin).

Administrator malfeasance


After Mrmiscellanious locked me out, Brianmc set about cutting the article up, leaving glaring typos. Look at the things they cut! Neither of them showed any evidence of familiarity with the topic. Also, they did so just as Kubby's lawyer was in court and after I had sent the story link to various other media.

What are my options here? Is it too much to ask for an unbiased admin who can read and count to four? I have read about foreign wikis where admins gang up on editors they don't like and lock them out. Show me how this did not happen here! Brianmc was just a crap editor, this happens sometimes. However, I can't see how, after deliberately abusing 3RR and lockout to exercise editorial control, Mrmiscellanious can remain an admin. Can you?

Timeshifter and I worked for three days gathering sources and writing this (he gathered most of the sources I used to write the articles), only to have demonstrably uninformed editors hack it up. I am a fervent believer in Wikipedia, and particularly in the power of neutrality to reveal truth, a point I have made with difficulty to several activists hard done by on Wikipedia. Things like this do make one want to give up and leave.

Four requests

  1. I'd like this block removed ASAP, and declared out of order.
  2. I'd like the Kubby article immediately reverted to my last, with a discussion to follow as to how to change it.
  3. I'd like Mrmiscellanious stripped of his admin privileges.
  4. I'd like to initiate a discussion on the propriety of placing a cleanup tag on a published article (the talk page would be better).

Please advise,

StrangerInParadise 07:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Referred the user to WN:DISPUTE on his talk page. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re NSW Story, Thanks, not sure how that happened...


Perhaps MrM only moved the article. StrangerInParadise 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It happens frequently -- I sometimes forget to check the box myself.. :D --Chiacomo (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

StrangerInParadise's block


I don't wish to continue this dispute over to you, so I'll keep it brief.



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.


When to block?

Admins can block users or IP addresses who:

  • Vandalize articles
  • Break the three revert rule
  • Excessively and consistently break site policy. Admins should only do this as a last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings.
  • Are trouble-makers who are not contributing to our goals.

As you can see, my original blocks were in line with policy. While 3RR states 24h, this is the user's second offense in the past week for the same policy. I do not think that 24h is effective in this case. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 11:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am aware of exactly what the policy pages say -- I read them before reducing the block, rescinding the block, and reinstating the block. I believe we have a conflict in our policy pages (or at least in your reading of them) -- the 3RR policy page says explicity that users can be blocked up to 24 hours. --Chiacomo (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Concerning that fourth revert


Could you review Wikipedia:Revert cited in WN:3RR, and confirm that your cited four reverts resulted, that the page becomes identical to how it used to be at some previous time.. May I suggest for this, listing the necessary four null-diffs. Note that Wikipedia:Revert effectively rebuts the assertion made by yourself and several other admins that reinserted material constitutes a revert.

StrangerInParadise 23:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've looked at the link you cite and also read Wikipedia:WP:3RR which says, "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period." The emphasis is mine, but that explains it pretty well -- even if it's not part of our policy, our policy is based on Wikipedia's policy. This is a dead issue in my mind. The wiki would be better served if the incident is not repeated (by any editor on any article) whether or not you agree that the policy was violated. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Clearly, WP:REVERT controls here, as it overrides, but I see your point. I am in a small procedural bind, as some are pressing to publish, and I haven't had Amgine's attention to discuss how to move forward, though this should sort itself out tomorrow. Thanks. StrangerInParadise 03:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Publish and fix it later if you can reach consensus. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cartman and I agree that it is unpublishable in its current state, see his suggestion for a compromise. StrangerInParadise 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Admin page


Wow you were quick with that trigger! [1][2] I'm back to give WNN another shot. -- NGerda 06:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

☻ Someone has poured you tea

Sources don't add


The sources support the statement. Don't revert unless you find another. --Irishpunktom 06:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't innaccuracies be more of a concern for you? --Irishpunktom 06:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

More for the trophy cabinet


I was working up to that one, only 6 or 7 stories to go. I was particularly pleased with my last Thailand one. It was a pain, many of the mainstream sites were reporting on the upcoming ruling on Valentine's day, but I had other things to worry about then. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply



I will not edit that article under this circumstanses. Do whatever you like. Make a POV article if thats the price to get it published and I wont interfere. International 05:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply


I, Brian New Zealand hereby award you this white dove for your work in trying to stop another wikinews edit war, this time on Full extent of Abu Ghraib detainee abuse revealed

Thank you... Though I fear that my efforts may be in vain. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re Abu Ghraib


MrM has just made a dubious set of edits, which I have just reverted. Could you review the revert, and the photo issue, including my reasoning here. This is looking more-and-more like simple censorship driven by personal distaste. StrangerInParadise 19:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, could you look into International's latest block, it does not seem to be documented and looks suspicious. StrangerInParadise 19:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

My 3RR proposal


I've called for a vote on my 3RR Proposal. Could you indicate your support or opposition, with brief comment (in the vote, or extended comment below). StrangerInParadise 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

3rd lead change


not sure what went wrong with the sqwiggly template stuff showing up with the 'lead' change. Hoping you can fix that. I looked into it, but see no progress I can make to change it for the better. Best regards. -Edbrown05 06:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was on lead 2 template, have fixed (Hope you don't mind me replying) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 07:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry. I did that earlier. Apparently you can only add a secondary article to the other leads and not the feature. So I put the 3rd lead to 2nd lead template to allow the related/secondary article. Jason Safoutin 12:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, misread the format


I'll wait, StrangerInParadise 00:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dispute resolution


No worries, thanks very much. I don't really know anything about this stage of dispute resolution - I've never read past disputes. The only thing that I hope people don't misunderstand is that I don't consider myself to be in dispute with MrM, I'm just sick of reading conflict after conflict. - Borofkin 01:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whats with the cryptic?


"remove cat per WN:DR" --elliot_k 15:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your use of blocks


You have blocked from editing for no reason.

re: RfAr


Looking into this BNZ request, I stumbled upon the 'Category:Terrorism' vote on WN:DR. Interesting as that result was, I see no new 'Category:Insurgency'.

(I digressed straight off)! But on the matter at hand, I have a very fuzzy understanding of BNZ's specific objection. I do believe the ArbCom committee will witness many atttempts to circumvent the 'Dispute resolution' process. I'm not sure yet what I think on that matter. -Edbrown05 07:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Okay, but I don't even know what the disagreement is about. Which to me means, go through dispute resolution, where the problem would be encapulated. -Edbrown05 08:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your preliminary work Chiacomo, which as usual is golden. I don't see a high urgency in this issue, but I feel a high urgency in my going to bed! Good night to u and all, ( and most recently BNZ, I must retire). -Edbrown05 09:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio at Howard's 10 year party gatecrashed


User:Goldiemicky says that s/he typed the initial article into the Wikinews window, meaning that it is licensed under CC-A 2.5, and Melbourne Indymedia have reused our content without attribution. I've removed the copyvio tag, please review. - Borofkin 03:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

RE: Toilet Article


I didnt see the other article. Thanks for pointing that out, I will look at merging them - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 07:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jumping the gun


I strongly suspect both Brian New Zealand and I are jumping into /Workshop sections already, but we got some good work done this evening. I should be able to finish my sections tomorrow. I will see what evidence Brian is interested in locating tomorrow as well. - Amgine | talk en.WN 09:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Format for evidence


note that the words directly below "ignore all rules" don't fit there and in your description re; first assertion you said "second" insertion. Neutralizer 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

spell in userbox arbitr.


moratorium is spelt moritorium in Wikinews:Requests_for_arbitration/Brian_New_Zealand_vs._Amgine/Workshop#Moritorium. cld u please fix it. thnx, Doldrums 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Recuse Request Statement


"The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response."

Please read the appropriate policy; this issue is a part of the arbitration process. Also, please allow me aa little time to respond to your apparent attempt to subdue this request. Neutralizer 00:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
<grin> the policy refers to the possibility of an arbitrator being "required" to recuse themselves for non-trivial conflicts; This is non-trivial, therefore I expect all arbitrators to see this and consider this; not just CSpurrior. Also, perhaps you forget thatMindspillage, a Wikipedia arbitrator, mentioned that the main request page was a good spot to put it. Neutralizer 00:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ok; I assume you have now read the short policy which mentions the word "required" in terms of recusal. If you have no intention of even considering whether CSpurrier should be recused, please tell me now. Also, I have read the comments of Mindspillage and he stated the primary request page is an appropriate spot. In addition, since there is so much "evidence" as to the appearance of bias, I feel that evidence should be on the evidence page. I truly can't see where it would interfere with your work. Neutralizer 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
CHEERS! Chiacomo...

Thanks Chiacomo


Goodonya! For adding cats to the Protesters mark 3rd anniversary of Iraq invasion article! Buy you a beer mate...

This is my first time contributing to wikinews. I was curious as to how the publication process works? Thanks --Jbull14 06:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is my first time contributing to wikinews. I was curious as to how the publication process works? Thanks --Jbull14 06:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC) Jbull14Reply

Thanks for the help --Jbull14 06:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please ask CSpurrier to respond


Hey, friend, please address the recusal issue with CSpurrier (like you did with me)as he needs to respond right away. I sent him this note;

"Please repond to request for your recusal

Hey, please respond ASAP because the recusal policy Chiacomo showed me says; "The Arbitrator in question will seriously consider it and make a response."

In addition, the policy refers to the possibility of an arbitrator being "required" to recuse themselves for non-trivial matters. These are non-trivial bias indicators, therefore should you refuse the request; other Arbcom members will need time to decide whether the recusal is required. The request hit the site at 01:14, 22 March 2006 so hopefully you can respond right away.
Your bias is palpable,I think, as shown by the list of indicators (including your 6 month block of me and your on the record comments as to MrM's general innocence.:"... I believe the primary reason for this RfDA and the other attacks on MrM are not his actions on the site but that he holds an unpopular and somewhat odd :) political view --Cspurrier 23:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)")
Policy requires you to respond before arbitration begins so please do not leave the community waiting amy longer. Thanks in advance." so hopefully that will get some results."
  • As you have been diligent in managing the process of the arbitrations, I am asking you to help make sure that the recusal policy is abided by since it is part and parcel of the arbitration process. Thanks so much, Neutralizer 14:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

cat monger!


Gotcha on that point! and agree that he who chases a category, please chase the categories all the way :) -Edbrown05 07:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Welcome messages


That makes sense :) I will add that template to my list :) Thanks :) Jason Safoutin 02:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, I usually send welcome messages to those IP addy's who usually make a good edit. I also use {{test}} with those IP's that vandalize or test...should I use {{subst:test}}? Jason Safoutin 02:24, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I am keeping my username


It is the only one that describes my best. SeniorWikiNewsReporter 00:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is not confusing, it is an extremely accurate username. If I used anything else, then users would be confused!!!

I do, I am a senior reporter with an account. Most reporters don't have an account!!! SeniorWikiNewsReporter 00:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll think about it. SeniorWikiNewsReporter 00:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply



I am a perfectionist and I went crazy when I read that guys article. SeniorWikiNewsReporter 00:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)Reply



I noticed your push for top-level regional categories and fully support it. Then I look at Frugalware Linux Pushes Forward story which sort of denies to be identified with any particular region. So, just leave it blank? Or other thoughts you might have? -Edbrown05 06:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Topic categories are not Portal Pages... that's a new realization to me since I hadn't given it a thought, but that fact makes a difference if news article counts records are being made on the basis of Portal Page articles. It would leave a slim % of published stories uncounted.
I know that talk of region Portal "World" was passed around and ended no where.
I want to look into the ArbCom stuff tonight and am happy to let that sleeping dog above lie. -Edbrown05 06:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Are you OK?


I just read on CNN that there was a devestating tornado in your area. I hope you and your loved ones are OK. --Deprifry|+T+ 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

UserBox finding by ArbCom


Yesterday, Linuxerist asked me if UserBoxes are allowed here. I answered him, but couldn't locate the page for the finding by ArbCom. The finding should be posted somewhere, at a minimum on the ArbCom page, or incorporated into the policy pages.

Firstly, can you provide me with the link to the committee finding (that would save me searching). Secondly, thoughts on posting it to policies. -Edbrown05 04:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Reply



ok; thanks for alert. Neutralizer 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply



In light of recent events, I'm not sure it's necessary; however, I do think that there is occasionally some merit to accepting arbitration against the will of main actors in the dispute when they hurt the community as a whole. Ral315 (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

what's happened to the 'submit a story page'?


It's a monster looking thing (in the date section) since the last I've submitted a new story. -Edbrown05 06:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply


Thanks for the diff link to that revision. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Crash article



I'll add the sources. Do you have MSN?

It seems that little has happened with the case over the past few weeks. Is it possible that it be wrapped up shortly?-Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've participated in this as far as my concerns and interests for the community allow me to go. There will be no further involvement in it from myself. -Edbrown05 07:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I took a route on this that was surprising to myself. I would abstain on the vote of closing it if I did anything, which is more than I will do, because I already said I wouldn't. -Edbrown05 06:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, it is problematic to not vote, or abstain, as you say Chiacomo. I came as close to recusing myself from this as I possibly could come, without actually doing so. Hopefully MrM can find some satisfaction in that.
The trouble I created for myself is this, if I opposed themotion to close, it would necessarily re-involve me to explain why. I wouldn't simply rubber stamp the motion...
I gotta get moving, and this is talk that won't influence the outcome... -Edbrown05 14:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
... so, if I were to recuse myself, then any vote I made on this should be removed... at least that is my current thinking. And I also look at it in the context of, if MrM is community voted to be de-admined (per a voting guideline of this case that a reconfirmation vote will occur), then if MrM fails to be reconfirmed, the perma-ban of Cowicide imposed by MrM could possibly go away (under some similar principle)? In other words, is there a retro-active thing going on with this? -Edbrown05 08:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Again, thanks for contributing to Wikinews! The article you've edited, Spanish-language version of U.S. anthem stirs controversy, was published on April 29. According to WN:NOT, Wikinews articles are not works in progress -- basically, once the article is published the only changes should be grammar/spelling correction or perhaps categories. This is frustrating at times (for me at least) because there may be additional information that I want to add. If there is new information, it is best to create a new article. DragonFire1024 reverted, I think, based on this principle. Please do let me know if I can assist you in any way and, again, welcome to Wikinews! --Chiacomo (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, thanks for the quick and insightful response. I think I get it now! Best wishes. Rossp 02:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)rosspReply



OK, I made a comment here:

to which there has been no reply. You say you concern yourself with NPOV issues (an almost thankless job, but I thank you so it isn't completely thankless.) That's the subject mattter of my comments.

I think there's a difference between "the Cubs are the best baseball team ever" type statements and "2 + 2 = 4" type statements. I don't think NPOV requires tolerance or careful stepping around the "2 + 2 = 5" crowd. NPOV doesn't promote nonsense to an equal footing with sense. Does it?

Similarly, and more likely to matter, I think it is proper to say "intelligent design isn't science" (it's philosophy if it's anything.) I don't say philosophy is bad or need be suppressed - but I do say philosophy doesn't "trump" or supplant science. When it comes to what is to be taught in science classes philosophy simply isn't pertinent. Intellignet design may, to some, be fabulous philosophy or may have concepts that they find to be valid. That's "valid" outside science and what matters most, as far as science is concerned, is what is inside science.

The same thing goes for the fables about mobile WMD laboratories in Iraq. There is zero evidence for them. The "evidence" that did exist was pure spculation on the part of some in the US and pure fable (which might have been largely repeating slightly altered US speculation to the Germans who then passed it on to the US. All the arguments in favor of there having been such things in Iraq are based on assuming that the claims were based on the best evidence available at the time. That's not so. Those who looked at the trailers and considered the evidence on the trailers concluded the trailers were for hydrogen manufacture. What was on the trailers was the best evidence. The WMD claims were supported by expanding what was considered to include speculation and questionable "defector intelligence" (from "Curveball.") When the CIA/DIA white paper was issued the best evidence was what was found on the trailers. What was found on the trailers did not support the WMD claims.

The reaction used to make hydrogen is one involving water, aluminum, and lye and when the white paper itself reports aluminum and lye were found on the trailers (water being so commonplace that no analysis is needed) it's clear, from the white paper itself, that the trailers were for making hydrogen. When the white paper disguises the lye by calling it "caustic" it's pretty likely that was done consciously, in order to avoid directly admitting that the two major components needed for the reaction to make hydrogen were found on the trailers. Not only does the best evidence show the trailers were for making hydrogen, the white paper shows that there was a deliberate intent to deny that truth. That truth is now accepted by the administration. There is no administration support for the WMD claims made for the trailers. The NPOV has to reflect that administration admission that the trailers were for making hydrogen - anything else is not NPOV.

The Duelfer report identifies the so-called "caustic" as being lye (sodium hydroxide.) The NPOV has to reflect that "caustic" was a deceptive word for "lye."

Thanks for your time.

Minasbeede 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply



This is a message to inform you that I have added every administrator to the Rfda section on WN:A. This is not personal and I feel as if the community, who did not have the option of voting for or against most of the administrators, should be able to choose who they want to be in charge. I also want to say that I value everyones work on this site and I know that everyone does their best. I hope that none of you will take this personally and I hope that all of us will continue to work together. Jason Safoutin 12:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Net skills to be taught by kids


Can you change the image from .png to .svg. I find Wikinews' auto-protect policy a little odd, as it doesn't allow later categorisation, link fixes etc. Ed g2s 17:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you


I cannot thank you enough for agreeing to work towards resolution. Hopefully we can find a solution that pleases DragonFire1024 and everyone else. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 02:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

ur Brian New Zealand vote


reads "Comment", but the comment appears to be imply "Support". cld u take a look. thanks, Doldrums 05:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, just thought i shld point it out. Doldrums 05:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)Reply



I'm getting connection refused at the moment... User:Amgine 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (not on the usual machine, so not logged in, and frustrated about it too! <grin>)Reply



Thanks for helping out with the article I’m working on. Do you think it's developed enough to publish? MyName 00:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Also, thanks for the regional catagories fix. MyName



Hi! You are now a checkuser here. Please apply to checkuser-l, the international checkuser mailing list (this is mandatory). Jon Harald Søby 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply



I would like to nominate you for Beurocrat. I think you'd make a good Berocrat. Do you accept? Bawolff ☺☻  03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I will accept, though I'm not sure we really need another bureaucrat. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

To make things right


As a part of ArbCom you have selected and approved some users to do CheckUser permissions. This is done without any discussions, nominations or selection by Wikinews community. ArbComs part in this is not stated in any policy on Wikinews and this speedy and unauthoriced process can be seen as instructioncreeping. A fair posision in this case is to accept Wikimedia Foundation demand for allowing CheckUser permissions. It is that ArbCom approve them.

In ArbCom You now have selected these users. That is not a within ArbComs authotity. Whats done is a mistake and can easy be corrected by ArbCom. Declare this decision open and ask the community to select these users. The selection process is a buissnes for the whole Wikinews community and should be done by voting.

I must point to the importance of this. As I wrote in water cooler this can be a first step to make ArbCom to a kind of goverment body and this is not whats decided. I will go so far as to question the status of those of you, that dont work against a community based selection in this case, as elected representative in ArbCom or in worst case raise the question of ArbComs abolishing.

I hope that you solve this problem and make things right and dont put prestige in this in itself small thing. international 22:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Off to dig in the bilge


I was going to work here just until the boatique opened up at 10am... but it's 11:15 and I'm just going to head back and get to work... <blush> I got all involved and stuff. Anyway, I left a big RFCU for someone to get to. Sorry about piling work on the CheckUsers, but it would be good to clear Neutralizer's name if this morning's events weren't by him (they don't quite fit his style, but they're not completely different either.) I should be back in Canada this evening. - Amgine 18:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC) (editing not logged in)Reply

My Response


Okay. Here’s my response to your “notice.” :

You say “It's generally acceptable to abbreviate country names in headlines” but when I was looking through stories being worked on, “South Africa” was spelled out in full S-O-U-T-H A-F-R-I-C-A, instead of just S.A, like The United States of America was so humbly abbreviated. So instead of giving a insignificant African nation more respect than the great United States of America, I edited the title, along with the title of Great Britain. If you have a problem with this I suggest you stay true and consistent (I know that’s redundant) to your word and abbreviate South Africa, S.A., just like everything else. All right?

Crownie 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

All Right, thats a good point I'll leave it that way. Crownie 03:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Reply



Congratulations on achieving Bureaucrat status!THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 20:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply



Congratulations, you are now a bureaucrat--Cspurrier 20:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I beat you to it, craigs! —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Let's have an orgy of celebration in honor of the Fourth Bureaucrat of the English Wikinews! —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 20:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Congratulations from me too...! :-) Frankie Roberto 22:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. --Chiacomo (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply



Why I am not blocked yet? I thought this was a troll account! Can a woman still block me?

Neutralizer 3rr title violation



On the day after concensus reached. Against protests in discussion. Ealturner 13:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please also note Neutralise "NPOV'd" this article[4]. 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

image deletion


would you please be so kind and delete Image:Allende.jpg because there's no source given and w:en:Image:Allende 9 11 73.jpg got the fair use license.

regarding Tomos lockedout


Hi. Thank you for your time and attention for the matter. The account Tomos_locked_out! is fake. I (Tomos) was never locked out. Tomos 08:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Reply



i can feel my head swelling already. :) Doldrums 05:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

IRC ping


was to bring this to ur notice. Doldrums 16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)Reply




I didn;t start any personal attacks.He started it but it's on a different site.--Cute 1 4 u 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

But he told me to send him attacks. it's the truth.--Cute 1 4 u 05:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Nominees for ArbCom election


I understand that the ArbCom election is a couple of weeks away, but when can people be nominated? —this is messedrocker (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply



Thanks! If you could email me a card that would be great! Crimson 18:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Wikipress ID Card


Hi, how do I get my id card? Could you please email one to ? Thanks Crimson 17:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Requesting immediate rename of accounts


Hello Chiacomo, seeing as you're a bureaucrat, I'd like you to immediately rename the following accounts:

These are impersonates of established Wikipedia users, and they have only been used for vandalism. Please rename them. —this is messedrocker (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

A Couple Of Things


1) Would you mind doing me a favor? Check this out, and leaving some thoughts on my talk page?

RE: Accreditation


sorry to bother you, but if you could update accredited users page to match my ID Card. Thanks! terinjokes User Page / Talk 02:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Problem viewing Images


When I use IE7 I can see pics. Conversly, using Opera I cant't. Do you know what is going on? Thanks -New Newsie 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I asked FellowWikinews this question and he just reverted -RUDE. New Newsie 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I reverted because of this and this. FellowWikiNews (W) 21:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)Reply



what's a billion or a million b/w friends :)  — Doldrums(talk) 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Images from CNN-IBN-live


Some time ago there was a discussion about using their stories... but can we use their images as fair use?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply



hey chiacomo, i forgot to include it in my email, so I hope you check here. Audio Wikinews Newsline terinjokes User Page / Talk 22:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

good to see you arround


havn't seen you arround recently (although I havn't been here to much either), good to see you back. Bawolff 06:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas!

File:Santa arrest.JPG
HO HO HO! These people got no presents from me this year.
FellowWikiNews is whishing thou a Merry very pegan Christmas , Seasons Greetings, Happy Holidays, Happy Hanukkah, or whatever thou calls it, and
realised they had purposefully forgotten about thou. This user is completely thoughtless, doesn't care about Season's Greetings,
and therefore DEMANDS you have yourself a Merry Christmas... NOW!

Failure to comply will result in going to jail with Santa. (Note: Santa is Satan spelt backwards)!

Christmas Story (Children Friendly):

So kids, is Santa Democrat or Republican??!

Often depicted as an obese man wearing a tasteless red, ermine trimmed suit, Santa Claus is a self-employed Caucasian male who's been married to the same woman for several centuries. It appears likely that he is a churchgoer, insofar as he is a Catholic saint and a former bishop. It has to be assumed here that Claus was released from his vows, or else he would not have been married.

Frequent arguments have erupted over the political affiliation of Claus. Ten years ago, Dick Cheney inadvertently dealt a savage blow to the morale of the Republican Party when he misidentified the political affiliation of Santa Claus in his best-selling book, Parliament of Whores. "Santa Claus," he said, "is a Democrat." However it is perfectly obvious from his demographic profile alone that Santa is in fact a Republican.

This assessment is often rebutted by Democrats with Anne-McCaffery counter-analysis: Santa Claus has no children. High-achieving professionals without children trend Democratic. While the Clausian canon does not specifically address the issue of Santa's children, numerous extra-canonical sources suggest that Claus did, in fact, reproduce. Numerous Christmas TV movie specials alone support this point.

Santa is renowned for an aggressive adherence to a binary naughty/nice list, which suggests an impatience for nuanced moral positions that betrays his Republican preferences. Santa's mere willingness to define individuals along a naughty/nice axis demonstrates his indifference to the philosophical stance of, say, The New York Times. And note that no canonical or extra-canonical Clausian text indicates that Santa ever attended college or, God forbid, graduate school.


FellowWikiNews approves of this story.

== Merry Christmas! ==


Merry Christmas! Wishing you all the best for the forthcoming year. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

User photos


Please review this discussion: Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#User_photo.27s.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

cgi chat


Bawolff told me to contact you, regarding the irc chat you have set up for wikinews. can you take a look here? Waldir 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply



After the mild debate on ALERT, I have been bold and proposed this could you please have a look over, and sign if you agree Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 10:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply



Mark is still waiting to be made up after a successful RfA. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

use of Chat room content on Wikinews


I remember a conversation from over a year ago where you had some serious opposition to the use of chat content on Wikinews. Current thoughts? -Edbrown05 05:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not that it matters now, but I wouldn't oppose that use of chat-room content... Generally, it's considered bad form and against policy (though I've not checked for updates) to post chat-logs from freenode to the Wiki. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
The feeling I get is that it is all fair game. How can one connect the dots when user names mask identity? You can't. Would this mean you can't do anything? I think not.

If all you have at the scene of the post is the thought, then aren't those thoughts, no matter in what forum, "reportable"? Surely they are. And is the thought of someone whose online name is "Whatever", not also 'reportable'? If not, I wonder at what kind of internet we have. -Edbrown05 07:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where Are You?


Just wondering whats been up. Have not seen you around. Hope you come back soon :) DragonFire1024 23:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply



I registered today because I saw that Portal:Football was very out of date. I have written a few articles so far today and will do every day to keep this updated. I was thinking of an idea though but I wanted to ask a sysop first.

Could we 'employ' users to be football writers for their team. So if this goes ahead there would be a group of users per team who will write up the latest news and match reports for Wikinews. The team links would be Portal:Football/LeagueName/ClubName. So for Celtic it'd be Portal:Football/SPL/Celtic. If you go to Portal:Football you will see that the fixture list has been updated, the featured results has been updated and that I am going to start a major revamp of Portal:Football. I am going to ask Dark Squall to help me as most of his contributions are football related topics.

Thanks. Please send your comments to me ASAP. Celticfan383 01:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply



Hello. Bawolff 00:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Return to the user page of "Chiacomo/Archive 3".