Contralya

Welcome

Contralya, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

• Wikinews:Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
• Wikinews:Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

• Wikinews:Introduction - overview of the site
• Wikinews:Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
• Wikinews:Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
• Wikinews:Contents - the contents page.

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

• Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
• The front page lead articles often need updating
• Developing stories need finishing and publishing
• Discussions need your input
• Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
• And of course, stories need writing!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! irid:t 09:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way

I'm glad to hear you prefer Wikinews over TV media! We're happy to have you here. Stick around, and maybe edit some articles, too. Welcome! irid:t 09:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

cool down please

Please, cool down your comments. Jacques Divol 07:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am simply putting my thoughts on subjects. I like to share my thoughts if you don't mind. It's not like I am insulting anyone, I like to debate a little now and then. And some times things can be utterly ridiculous (like thinking that no-one is capable of lying). I am sorry if I offended you. Contralya 07:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I see no problem in using the comments pages for your comments and for sharing your thoughts. That's what the comments pages were created for. :-) -- IlyaHaykinson 07:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That is what I thought they were for too (like the box at the top of the opinion pages and the boxes at the bottom of articles asking to post opinions). Curious how rare posts in opinion sections are. I am not saying that everyone else is wrong in my posts, I am just telling it like I see it; like I said before, a little debate is healthy, it lets people see all sides of a story. Contralya 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

sorry, i did not want to hurt, but when i saw the flow of opinions you write, my first thought was "a spammer attack...." i must block him before he/she spoils Wikinews. i did'nt block you nor erase your elevated thoughts (^-^). I am not at ease with this article's subspace called opinion, not very usefull, a misleading place (Wikinews reach an agreement to create it, i know, no problem). You are, of course, free to write any opinion you need, even if Wikinews is in badly need of active contributor writing articles !!! Jacques Divol 08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, was it the frequency of my edits? I was making comments pretty fast for a few minutes. I am sorry about not editing more than grammar and such, I am not so good at writing in wiki format (especially finding sources) and have been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. Contralya 08:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I absolutely agree with you . News channels chose what people should be interested in and that's something i'm really bored about. The concept of wikinews is the way of the future i my opinion since i get to choose the news im interested in and follow the links in order to get hours of information the major news channel would judge ,not of importance for the population . A good example is the internation news , here in wikinews the internation news his prioritary because this is and internation website and i like that very much. --Z E U S0 05:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Contralya 09:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

US Pres

Too bad there are no wikinews interviews to U.S. presidential candidates, whoever if going to be elected is going to change the world... Contralya 21:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been trying to work on those interviews, however I got distracted after some of the odd questions posed turned me off. If you'd like to help sort out the questions, be my guest, and I'll start contacting them. Wikinews:Story preparation/US 2008 -- Zanimum 18:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I did my part, with my questions and the message for a friend that I hope will be answered someday. Contralya 10:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

POV?

Please explain the placing of the tag on the articles talk page, as I don't understand your reasoning for it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC) As I have said, it implies that 'American empire' is a fact, instead of an opinion or theory. It offends me and probably millions of others. Since it is not a quote of someone, that means that the article is not neutral. Contralya 12:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Its not his quote...its what they teach their students and tell their people. This is not a quote or a thought, but a way of life, in the eyes of Iran. So therefore, technically this "quote" is true. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"Whether Ahmadinejad should speak or not, the war in Iraq, Israel, American imperialism, George W. Bush, God, and morality created a powder keg of opinions which made the air feel as if at any moment it would explode into fisticuffs."

This does not clearly state that it is what he was talking about. Contralya 13:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request denied

Two things:

1. Personal attacks of any type are not permitted on this wiki. You have made virtually no positive contributions to any articles here, so you have absolutely no right to label someone with some political view.
2. Please stop subst:ing templates that aren't designed for that.

See you in 20 hours. irid t i e 00:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

If I accused someone of being a libertarian or green party, would I be treated this way? I didn't mean to insult, I wanted to know weather or not he is in that party, and if it effects his objectivity. And you can't blame me for not 'not making positive contributions', I am mostly here to READ NEWS and I am not a reporter (I totally suck at finding 'sources'). Most of what I do as far as editing is posting questions and opinions for debate in the opinions section, and occasionally questioning things in the collaboration section. Are you condemning me for not being a editor? Is using the internet without being able to edit like you guys do a crime? I only know rudimentary wiki editing. (Actually, I would like to know how you guys do all of this editing). I was not labeling him, I was saying that he supported the party or was in it.

Please tell me what "subst:ing" is. Because I have no idea what that term means. Is it about posting the little boxes at the top of a page? I know from wikipedia that if you see a problem with an article, you put a box at the top to inform viewers and help editors find things that need to change. Like putting 'update' on something that is obviously outdated. Are they used differently here? If so, than what are the boxes at the top used for?Contralya 01:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Now three things.

1. If you're here to read news, being blocked shouldn't bother you; you're free to read as much as you'd like since being blocked only effects editing.
2. Any accusation of a political affiliation (especially a political party which has had an interesting history with Wikimedia projects) that is also made with the tone that you used is effectively considered an attack. It is unfortunate that you say now that you weren't labeling him; because labeling him with the title of "communist" would imply that you were saying he supported the party or was in it.
3. We've seen you editing on Wikipedia; you're not a newbie. Don't pretend to be.

That said, once your block is complete, you can resume ranting on the comments pages and yet making no valuable contribution here whatsoever. If you're incapable of editing the wiki, please don't go to the top of this page and read the instructions we give to everyone. irid t i e 01:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, "subst:ing" is where you write something like {{subst:update}} instead of {{update}}. irid t i e 01:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

What? Why are you attacking me like this? Assume good faith please. As we have both said, most of my editing is posting opinions. I like posting opinions. I have edited, I don't know ADVANCED editing, I know basic stuff like formatting basic text, and I have found boxes and copy/pasted them were I want to put them. I have never made a wiki article from scratch, unless you count my user pages. I do not come here to create articles, I am not a reporter, I am not a serious editor. I am not acting like I don't know how to edit. I don't know advanced editing! And give ONE example of me using the subst thingy, I think I might of used it a couple times, what does writing that prefix do? I don't know what it is, I know that I don't do it often. If it is something I should never do, just say so. Please, don't take your anger out on me. I think I might be being treated unfairly, I consider myself a consumer of this news, and do little editing compared to you guys. In wikipedia, I usually point out things being not neutral, but there is little of that over here. And saying things on the opinion pages isn't a crime! What are they there for if I am not allowed to post my opinion or debate there?

If you ban me for the long term just because I am standing up for my rights at this site, than I don't want to edit at a site were I get attacked for no reason. I admit, the communist thing could be interpreted as an insult, but it doesn't warrant this abuse! You bully me just because I don't write articles. Are you being mean to me because you disagree with my opinions? If so, that is NOT FAIR.

I am OK if this day long ban isn't lifted, but I am not OK with this treatment. When I noticed that I couldn't edit, I was wondering if there was some rule that wasn't in the rulebook, and than I saw about the communist thing. I think that person is sympathetic to the group, and that he may of been posting that information just to acknowledge the group. I am CERTAIN that the majority of those protesters weren't communist party. I was disagreeing with the article implying that they were. I try to improve in little ways, because I don't like the idea of people being mislead by the news. And I also maintain that article can't be 100% neutral due to the subject matter.

For the first two points, like I said, I didn't mean it as an insult, more like an allegation of involvement leading to not being impartial in editing choices. Do Chinese officials get mad when they are called communist? Do people who's party has communist in it's name get mad when they are called communist? Communism is a fact of life, there are many organizations in history who have been under it, though I would say Stalin's communism isn't actually communism, more like a regime.

And for the second point, I don't make a habit of using that prefix, I don't know what it does. Can you tell me what it does when you put that prefix in to a box? If it does something, than it is simply ignorance from someone who doesn't know everything about editing. I don't have any problem not using the prefix. Tell me what it does and when I should use it and I will act accordingly! Contralya 02:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Being blocked isn't the end of the world.

You are capable of editing articles just as much as you are capable of editing comments sections. (when you aren't blocked)

This is in no way a lifetime ban. Not even close. You would have to cause months and months of disruption before someone would ban you forever.

I'm not attacking or bullying you, though saying that is worth its weight in tin. I don't know what gave you the impression that this whole thing was supposed to be fair, though.

Whether or not you meant as an insult, it was taken as such, and after discussion between admins, you were blocked for 24 hours. The block is reasonable (well, okay, I personally disagree with it) and not extreme.

You were blocked by one of our oldest and most well-respected members. I absolutely trust his judgment, like many others here. Therefore, I don't think you will have your block lifted.

Basically, you can't just can't say "And commuist guy ... your party". Unless you want to make the case that you meant to write "commuist". irid t i e 02:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I do feel better. O.K. The comments aren't really that important, I was concerned if I was going to get banned for no reason and stuff (I have experienced this on other sites). Just so there is a little understanding, I would like the one who wanted the ban to know that I have a partially treated case of Asperger syndrome. Contralya 07:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Idea for an article

I saw an episode of The O'Reilly Factor, he was talking about how that rich guy was owning the other media, NBC and CNN and spewing "Far left" propaganda. This after the two news channels both criticized him as being anti-semitic, anti-black, even anti-Eskimo, how they manipulated parts of what he says and want people to think that O'reilly is evil.

"Mainstream media" at each others throats! This would be great to have an article about, seeing as we are neutral and not 'mainstream media' like Fox, CNN or NBC. Be careful not to be too critical, or leftists may just target wikinews...

Sadly, they used to. irid t i e 02:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OUCH! O'Reilly was right! I still think there should be an article about it. Watching that episode, It seemed like they had finally come to blows. Outright attacking each other on their programs! This is an event worthy of a news article. Contralya 02:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

comment

Not sure how to relate this to you, but I looked over your history and have one question. Do you think for yourself at all or do you just take the incoming bias to be accurate? Maybe you are sincere, but much of what you have written reads as though you are trolling. Analysis, that is the important thing-not just repeating vague talking points. Try reading about thing without deciding what you think it all means beforehand. 66.157.100.253 10:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I am not trolling and just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that I am wrong. Contralya 20:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said anything stating opposition? Some things you write that are vague rehashing of reports lacking reference I naturally discount but apart from that I have no opposition to you. I asked the other questions because of the immense influence you describe television news coverage had on you in different places; while that especially is where presenters must deliver in a strictly restricted manner that is rife with bias. It was a serious question. The trolling question was because so much of your writing makes ambiguous references in argument and uses derogatory language. 66.157.100.253 02:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• YOU said it. You act like I am wrong. Why do I need to give you evidence? Do I have to show someone my birth certificate if I tell them my age? You don't take my word. Is this because of the Fox news stuff? I think you might be a leftist trying to limit my free speech. Now, don't comment on this page again or I will delete it. I don't have this page to argue with the likes of you. Contralya 02:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Wikileaks is reliable in some aspects...and we went through extensive steps and correspondances to verify its authenticity. We do not use it regularly, but only in cases that we see reliable. Sorry to see you go then. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)