when the police come to get me i'm listening to dance music. dance music.
hmmm... what Specter needs is a little time in the Ronald Reagan Re-education Center, where he can learn about the Constitution and its "Crraaazy cousin", the bill of rights.
COOL DOWN edit
Comment on Wikinews edit
- Copied from q:User talk:Jeffq#Comment on Wikinews, with project prefix added to identify exact Wikimedia user who posted:
- No, I did not post that. It appears to be a copy of one of my m:Vandalism reports edits , but I haven't checked it thoroughly. This person (18.104.22.168 (talk · contribs) here) is engaged in another series of attacks on Wikiquote, and is just trying to stir up trouble. I have reverted the addition with my long-established Wikinews username and noted what happened in the edit summary. Thanks for calling my attention to this. ~ Jeffq 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Not all of them. I figure the mass majority are relicensed. The reset becuase of news significance as well as photos of legal documents, I will request a EDP as those in some cases can be considered sensitive material. DragonFire1024 11:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Good to see ya! edit
Unprotection of VT Article edit
In the interests of the article and the 3RR I am not reprotecting the article, but please note it was protected with reasons stemming from IRC that users are consistently wanting to rename the article to conform with the latest death counts. This obviously would create unwieldy redirect problems, as well as undoubted breaking of the RSS feed.
The protection was set in place as the headline was considered to be correct at the moment and for the forseeable future (hence 4 hours). It was merely to protect against the issues that the renaming of such an article would cause to the wiki and the related applications that Wikinews readers can and do use. Please consider this in future and IRC is there for these kind of things --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Leftover Dutch edit
- Sort of brings to mind the issue of pseudonyms. These online pseudonym names are more unique than a person's real name. That makes for better search engine results.
- I've noticed confusion in the eyes of people I've approached over the question of: "Can I quote you on that?" Their first reaction? No, they are lying of course.
So you offer accountability: "You can check it out what is reported at en.wikinews.org." Then it gets almost okay and relaxed. This is my first reaction to tentative steps in the water. I'm full of shit, people want to tell you what is going on. -Edbrown05 09:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Link to block created user edit
Good idea, that was bugging me - As all the account names were unimaginatively similar I just kept going back and editing the username to block. Should checkuser be requested on this in case a range block will deal with it? --Brian McNeil / talk 22:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, definitely. --+Deprifry+ 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Don't look now, but no-one seems to be blocking the next set of Hash raids - and I am no admin, so all I can do is get frustrated. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK why is Blood Red Sandman putting articles up for abandonment or am I reading article my history wrong? Are articles considered abanodoned after 4 days?? Niacey 15:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Niacey
What is confusing about the wording The text of this article has been released into the public domain by the authors, leaving other news agencies free to copy or modify its content in any way they choose. While attributing it as a source would be appreciated, it is not legally necessary.? I've looked it over several times, and cannot imagine what part is "confusing to readers" - or why one would claim it has no legal standing. Sherurcij 10:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Long term inactive administrators edit
Thanks for your input in the discussion at WN:A about whether to remove the admin rights from the five inactive admins. I am however, unsure as to why you consider this unjustified. I think it is important to recognise that adminship is not some kind of award giving to select members of the community, rather it is a tool to be used with care. There are a number of reasons why this right should be removed from inactive users.
Firstly, if someone looks at the list of admins they will be getting a misrepresentation of the true number of users active as administrators and if they are looking to contact an admin then they'll have to look through a long list of long gone users to find someone who might be able to deal with whatever query they have.
Also, if these users return after such a long period away then there could be some question about whether the community is happy with them emerging and straight away being able to use all the buttons. A lot will have changed and there is always the possibility that the user might not be the same trustworthy person they once were.
Another concern with dormant admin accounts is that it will be easier for someone to steal the account as the password won't have been changed in a good while. This has happened on a number of occasions at enwiki, I'm sure you'll appreciate the trouble a vandal with admin rights can cause. It is also a lot easier to minimise the risks associated with these accounts now at our own pace rather than trying to rush to find a steward to remove admins rights if one of these does start causing trouble.
Above all, these people have been inactive for between a year and nearly 2.5 years, it is unlikely they will return. If they do then they will be able to request admin rights again if they wish. I trust you will take time to consider what I have said and would welcome any further discussion on this issue. Adambro 17:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll just respond by paragraph:
- Absolutely true. It is a tool and supposed to be no big deal. No one is getting hurt if they don't use it.
- WN:A already divides admins by activity status. If anyone would want to contact active admins individually (although I don't see a compelling reason to do that, WN:ALERT will do much better) he has a convenient list at his disposal.
- True, but any active admin might also develop into an untrustworthy individual. A Rfda with cause is the way to go there.
- True, but an active admin might have a crappy password while an inactive admin might have a bulletproof one. Even after the incidents you mentioned, Wikipedia still has a ample supply of inactive sysops so this apparently not perceived to be a big problem there. Why should it be on Wikinews when we never had trouble with inactive admins? If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
- "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." But equally, why risk a problem developing when there is no need. This users are long gone, unlikely to return, there is no real reason to maintain the rights. We've got to draw a line somewhere, how long should we leave this users lurking around? 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? We're just going to end up with an unwieldy number of administrators of which only a small proportion are actually active. I appreciate you've taken the time to address each of the issues I've raised but none of this changes the fact that these people haven't contributed in years. I'd ask that you reconsider your position bearing this in mind as one of the key considerations. Adambro 18:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
British and American spellings edit
Please do not change between British and American dialects of English without explanation, as you did in Israeli spy satellite launched by Indian rocket. See WN:MOS#Spelling. --GW Simulations 19:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think people should first be directed to the main page with all the election info so they can read the instructions, and read about the candidates and their statements and answers to questions. Cirt (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
UEFA Intertoto Cup edit
2008 ArbCom elections edit
I have nominated you to be considered in the 2008 ArbCom elections - if you wish to be considered please accept and add a brief statement at Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/Elections July 2008. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you edit
Your comment and vote in the ArbCom election means quite a bit to me, and I'd like to solicit your input on other discussions I have started based on discussions and my experience at Wikimania. My userpage has two sub-ages which are linked to from the foot of User:Brianmc. Nobody has commented on how we put together a more formalised proposal to present to the WMF - Sue has indicated they are prepared to spend money to help us and this needs input. The second discussion is on a more formal workflow for article development which should minimise factual inaccuracies. However, a number of our newer contributors are being particularly negative about this. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If you have not already seen this, please look, comment, and vote both here and on bugzilla. Further assistance such as contact information for Google would be a very useful detail to share and help in petitioning for a listing in their news index. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank You edit
Notice: inactive admin edit
Hi. I've moved you to the inactive admin list at WN:A because you don't appear to have logged any edits for over a month. When you start editing here again, don't forget to move your name back to the active list at WN:A. Best regards, ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 18:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)