Thanks - For thank you's and congratulations - click link to left.

Users misbehaving - For complaints and/or actions taken against users, including me - click link to left.

old article needs protectingEdit

i think Second U.S. anti-missile defence system test fails needs to be protected for archiving. i just reverted[1] a vandal edit[2] on it. could u pls protect it. thanks, Doldrums 18:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Done - thank you for bringing that to my attention. Karen 19:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, incidentally, some other articles published on that date are also unprotected, i think. shall i list them here so u can protect those too? Doldrums 19:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got to leave for now. I think Amgine is around right now to help. Karen 20:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

would u care to...Edit

... work ur magic on Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei threatens "harm" and "double response to any strike" (yes, i love the title too.) I'm hoping for a quick publiucation, preferably ahead of today's anticipated developments on the issue. thanks, Doldrums 03:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't much for me to edit - the story looks good! Karen 03:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
any ideas on the title? best i could do was "Iran nuclear impasse heads towards Friday deadline". Doldrums 03:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
"Iran nuclear impasse continues" is short, and to the point. :) I had more edits to make after more contributors made edits than before. That's usually why I wait until the story is published to edit. Often my edits are lost when sections of text are removed or changed, so I usually don't bother stories earlier in development. Karen 20:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion vs. redirectsEdit

Hello there Karen! I've noticed that you put the delete tag on Trapped miners rescue delayed because all the content has been merged. For future reference, once you've merged an article into another one, you can simple make it a redirect. To do those, you simply write #REDIRECT [[Other article]] and then it will direct people to that page. Just letting you know for the future. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That certainly makes more sense, Messedrocker. I knew how to create a redirect, but didn't think to apply it in this situation. Thanks for the note! Karen 19:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Subject/verb agreementEdit

Hi Karen - thanks for your work in picking out small grammatical/spelling changes.

Just a quick note on 'subject/verb agreement'. Quite a few of these 'mistakes' are when the subject is syntactically singular but semantically plural, ie collective nouns. Whilst some people suggest that collective nouns should always be treated as singular, there seems to be a growing acceptance of treating them as plural (eg "the team have"). In these cases, I tend to go with what 'feels' most natural, although this will probably vary by idiolect (and possibly British vs American english). Frankie Roberto 11:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Semantically, the team is singular, while teams are plural. The confusion is when the subject "team" semantically refers to the people on the team. A team really is a singular entity, just like a group, a couple, or (in one edit I made) a threesome. I've also seen problems with "government have". A way to be syntactically singular but semantically plural and still use a verb for a singular noun subject would be to place the singular noun into a preposition modifying the plural subject. "The people of team alpha have done their job."
Indeed, but it can be a bit of a judgement call as to whether words like 'team' refer to the individuals or to the group. Both "the government has" and "the government have" both get well over a million hits, with all the top results come from authoritative sources. In most contexts, I can happily swap the singular and plural verb forms with them both still sounding perfectly natural... Frankie Roberto 20:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
"The government have" is syntactically incorrect, while semantically expressing "Government officials have". Just rewriting the sentence to be both syntactically and semantically correct makes the actual subject clear. "Team" always refers to a singular entity. I do agree that “team” can imply a plural subject, but the implied subject isn't the noun "team". When referring to plural elements of the team, just use a noun to represent those plural elements and add the modifying prepositional phrase "of the team". If I've failed to make a particular judgement call (I reviewed the last few days' edits.), please let me know. In every case, I believe rewriting the sentence can make it both syntactically and semantically correct. I may make mistakes in judgement where I've simply changed the verb tense instead of recasting the sentence. If you find where I've made a natural-sounding sentence seem awkward, then I probably made an edit in haste. Please let me know if I’ve made a sentence worse. I've seen others edit my edits and I've returned to make revisions, as well. "The team has done well, but the members of the team aren't perfect." Karen 20:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Or if you dislike having to use a prepositional phrase when a pronoun refering back to the original subject will do:
"The team has done well, but its memmbers aren't perfect." Karen 04:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

collective nounsEdit

Frankie Roberto is indeed correct that British usage often treats collective nouns as plurals.

Thus you'll see British usage such as "The team are full of enthusiasm." The usage isn't exceptional; it's merely colloquial. In the example sentence, "the team" simply implies "The team members". Thus, it's correct to replace the collective noun with what it actually implies, which satisfies all parties (the syntactical and the semantic). Why clarify what's colloquially implied? Because Wikinews readers are international, it's best to remove colloquial usage whenever possible. Karen 22:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In Scandal rocks Italian soccer clubs, the sentence "In the day in which Juventus have win the 29th Scudetto for the second year in a row The Naples magistrates are looking into suspicions of "criminal association" and "sporting fraud," begs editing. I'll wait for the story to develop before trying to make sense of the sentence in its current state. Although I've listed it here as an example of a collective noun defying subject/verb agreement, I believe the sentence suffers from other problems. Karen 23:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

subject/verb agreement (some)Edit

The most confusing pronoun with respect to verb agreement is "some", which is syntactically "one or more", but usually semantically means "more than one". Fortunately, I haven't seen any possible edits which involve "some".

"Some of these owners has received antibiotic cures, because this powder might be anthrax." appeared in Possible Anthrax scare in Norway. Notice "some" is treated as singular, possibly because the low end of the range "one or more" would be (one) singular. If sources could be more specific to indicate "more than one", then replacing "some … has" with "several … have" would be correct and more specific. It's best to avoid the use of "some" because it's quantitatively vague. Karen 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

recent subject/verb agreement editsEdit

An edit I'm currently making states: "there was several sites in Iran which tested positive". Note the misuse of "which", also. What "feels" right is "there were several sites in Iran that tested positive." "Several sites in Iran tested positive" is shorter, doesn't require extra pronouns for verbs, and avoids the use of the restrictive "that" phrase.
Usually, when there's a difference between the semantic and the syntactic, the sentence is probably awkward enough that it can be re-written to solve it. Karen 19:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Found and corrected in today's published stories:
    1. The main concern in many cities and towns are wheter or not the dams that hold rivers from flowing in cities will hold long enough.
  • Found and corrected in yesterday's published stories:
    1. As a response to these incidents, the State Police of São Paulo has arrested 82 suspects.
  • Recently found and corrected before yesterday's published stories:
    1. Two Ferrari cars occupies the second row.
    2. In the drivers' championship, Fernando Alonso won back 2 points from Michael Schumacher and now have 15 points lead.

spot the error!Edit

what (if anything) is grammatically incorrect in Template: Lead article? and how should it be fixed? Doldrums 06:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The prepositional phrase "for the Washington D.C.'s branch" modifying the verb "appointed" should be "for the Washington D.C. branch", since the appointment was for the Washington D.C. branch, not for Washington D.C.'s possession. Also, the phrase "coming from 18 years of service to Pittsburgh" intends to modify "a new spiritual leader," but sounds too awkward being set in a phrase seperated from the rest of the sentence by the comma - my suggestion is "The Holy See has appointed a new spiritual leader with 18 years of service to Pittsburgh for the Washington D.C. branch of the Catholic Church." Karen 06:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Karen, will you marry me? - Borofkin 06:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
hey! that was supposed to be my line! :) Doldrums 06:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
To me, it sounds least awkward of all the edits made so far. Give it a try. Karen 06:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Holy See has appointed Donald Wuerl, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, as the new spiritual leader for the Washington D.C. branch of the Catholic Church." is even better. Looks like another point for the team!

The sentence was a bit overloaded, before. Breaking a long or awkward sentence into smaller sentences is much better for copy. Moving phrases closer to the words that they modify will always help, too! Karen 06:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit ProjectEdit

Karen, as the undisputed Queen of Copyedit here at Wikinews, I'm wondering if you are aware of these pages and projects on Wikipedia:

Wikinews may be ready for a similar project. It would probably involve some method of tagging articles as needing copyediting (e.g. Template:copyedit), and then a page to organise contributors who are willing to copyedit. Whaddaya think? - Borofkin 08:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, any story I haven't read should be tagged as needing copyediting. See? Now your exaggerated compliment has gone to my head. I do try to read every published story, though. In general, it's faster to edit the entire story than it would be to tag and wait for someone else to come along to clean it. When the story is too confusing for me to edit, I just mark it with this existing tag: {{cleanup|Needs jargon removed/replaced.}} (for example)
I think I've only marked a story twice for cleanup - either because it was too confusing or I didn't have the time because I needed to leave soon.
My experience with copyediting is somewhat limited to news stories, so I don't venture to other wiki projects. When the user accounts are joined such that I can log in elsewhere by using the same account I made here, I'll be motivated more to make non-anonymous edits elsewhere.
Seriously, I do make the same kinds of edits very frequently. I could sure write something about the common mistakes I correct for spelling (occur, occurred, occurring), usage (which vs. that, followed by it's vs. its), style (time and date format), punctuation (said " vs. said, "), duplicate words (the the), and grammar (subject/verb and verb tense agreement).
The idea of having a list of contributors who are willing to copyedit would be nice - then a central discussion page could allow non-content-editing contributors to discuss issues and reach a concensus on issues that shouldn't be mentioned in the style guide without disussion. I've a checklist for copyediting; It'd be nice to share with others. Karen 08:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose the value of a {{copyedit}} tag would be that it would contain something like Category:Articles needing copyedit, so all the articles in need of copyedit would be listed in one place (we can't do this with the {{cleanup}} tag. Such a system would only be required when our number of articles increases, perhaps beyond 20-30 per day. As a wiki gets bigger, people with the skills need to become "organisers", because there will be (hopefully) too much work for one person to do. I love the idea of a "Karens Top Five", though. Perhaps you could write up a rant about the most common errors and post it to the water cooler? - Borofkin 02:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to dismiss the idea of a template so quickly. Your planning for the future should start now.
A template will be useful later. In fact, I can imagine instead of the long one-pass method of checking every story and fixing as I go would be replaced by a two-pass method where I check every story, tag some, then go back through the list that have been tagged and fix those. In the process, others can participate just by going through the same list. In fact, it would be great to see some of them corrected by the time I get to them, or others correcting them along with me in parallel.
I can view and analyse all of my edits for statistics. That's how I picked my examples that I listed above. I started cross-checking the largest number of specific fixes to the contributors and emailed or left a message on a talk page about some of them so they'd not keep writing the same way.
This coming week I'll be traveling, so won't have much time until partly through June. But the template is easy to make. I've made one before, and the example from Wikipedia will serve us well. Karen 02:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep, this is roughly how I was thinking it would work. The template would include Category:Articles needing copyedit, but not Category:Disputed, so the copyedit tag wouldn't cause them to become unpublished. - Borofkin 03:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Grammar queryEdit

is this ok? "the final 717 jet ever built" to mean "the last 717 to be built", in Boeing delivers final 717 to AirTran, ending Douglas era. it doesn't sound right, but am not sure. Doldrums 08:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The story is perfect as far as I can tell at a quick glance. I'd suggest "the last 717 build" because "the final 717 ever built" seems to state the obvious - there's one (and only one) 717 that is the final one ever. Or "the final 717 to be built" if it hasn't been built yet. Hope that helps. Keep the great stories coming! Karen 09:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Or just remove "ever" and state "the final 717 jet built". That's how I'd edit it in the context of the story. Karen 09:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
My editing is still about ten stories behind. I just jumped ahead to that one and made the edit. Karen 09:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thanks! and the credit for writing that perfect story goes to KeithH [3]. Doldrums 09:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Didn't he want to de-admin? I hope he sticks around as an admin and keeps contributing. I just assumed (before looking at the history) that you were in the final stages of writing your story. Well, good eye (or ear for what sounds awkward), because making the stories syntactically and grammatically correct doesn't guarantee they're well written. I think "final and ever" sounded redundant in the same sentence. Karen 09:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, he's the guy from Hawaii. It was Elliot k who requested de-admining. It's late for me here. I think I'll edit the remaining few stories after I rest. Karen 09:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
yep, KeithH is one of the few wikinewsies one can listen to (pun intended), he does Audio_Wikinews. as to the 717s, my ear says "The great pyramid was the final pyramid ever built" and "This is the last pizza to be baked by me" are ok, but not with the "is" and "was" interchanged. <sotto voice> mebbe it's something to do wi' tense or sumthin'.</sotto voice> Doldrums 09:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
You're probably entirely correct - it has more to do with tense than redundancy. I'm really not a grammar genius, I've just been reading a whole lot of style guides. Don't stop baking pizza, though! Karen 09:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

My user pageEdit

Thanks for changing the title of the article. FellowWikiNews 00:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stop editing my user page. FellowWikiNews 15:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It's [4]. Sorry, but I don't realy want anyone editing my user page. FellowWikiNews 16:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer me to leave a message to remind you to update headline names when stories are renamed? I can change the headline name quicker than I can leave a message, but I'll make the effort if you feel your user page shouldn't be edited except by yourself. Karen 16:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being so accomodating, Karen. It is not required to be so, but I appreciate the effort to avoid conflict. I have commented on this thread on FellowWikiNews's talk page. - Amgine 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC) (editing not logged in)

Template:Lead (and others)Edit

I personnally thought It looked better with a line return. Could I possibly change it back? Bawolff ☺☻  22:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

A line return? There were four extra in Template:Lead and Template:Main_lead. Do you mean you prefer the "» Full story" thing on the next line? I'll change that in both templates and see if you prefer it. Karen 23:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Now it looks very strange that way, but at least it's better than before. Hope that's what you wanted. Karen 00:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that I also recently fixed Template:Lead_2 to be consistent with the two listed above. To make sure these templates remain consistent, they could be nested. I'll see what I can do at a later time. Karen 04:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you User: FellowWikiNews 20:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Only until the next DHCP lease expires. Hurry now and try to attack the firewall while you still can. Karen 20:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Image on articleEdit

Would you have any idea why the image on Rice beats Oklahoma in first round of NCAA Super Regional, 10-4 doesn't appear? If I leave 100px off or increase it to something larger it works fine. The size 100px also works just fine on Wikipedia. Any suggestions? Ashlux 01:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Trying to find the answer to this… Karen 01:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yah, thought it seemed weird. Wasn't quite sure were to go (as usual major idling in #wikinews and #wikinews-en) heh. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 01:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried reducing it to an 8-bit png with transparency? I'm guessing it might be a 24-bit image with an alpha channel - something related to the image, itself. Karen 01:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll try uploading the version without transparency before trying to find those options in the GIMP :-) -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 01:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the resizing is done by the web server, not by the browser. It may be that the program can't deal with a 24-bit png with an alpha channel. When I try to access a resized image from the server, I get no image, leading me to believe that the image conversion broke. I suggest an 8-bit image for the simple logo, but a 24-bit image without the alpha channel may work. If that's the case, mention it on Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance or Wikinews:Water_cooler/technical so the people behind the scene can investigate. Karen 02:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I had the same problem with an intel logo on wikipedia a while back. Although it should work here if it works on wikipedia, as they both use the same thing on their webservers to resize the image (I assume). try increasing it by one pixel. user:bawolff 02:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Another article today has a broken image - just a link shows, but the full image is displayed when clicking on the link. My guess is that the image converter is broken. Karen 16:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Date template fixEdit

I think I found a fix for {{Date}} when wikilinks include the first word of the first paragrpah. I'm guessing it is a bug, but User:Ashlux/Sandbox seems to fix the template. Obviously I cannot fix it up since the template is protected. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 01:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Alright, User:Brian New Zealand let me make the changes to the template, and they seem to work fine in IE and Firefox. Looks like he left the page at semi-protection, might want to put it back to full too. -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 01:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Done! Karen 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Correcting old articlesEdit

I've noticed there are older articles that have been archived but need to be cleaned up a little bit. For example, Basra, Iraq raid by UK forces to rescue soldiers from police's source section. Sometimes the articles are missing categories too. Are we going to clean any of these things up without necessarily changing the content of the article? If so, I'm wishing I could actually do it sometimes heh -- Ash Lux (talk | contribs) 16:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll semi-unprotect a list of titles for you, but you should post the list on Wikinews:Admin action alerts per Wikinews:Archive_conventions#Post-archival edits. I'll respond there when semi-protected and when returned to full-protection. That way we have a place to list the work and the other admins know what's going on and can provide feedback. Karen 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, you should consider being an admin if you're going to be doing admin-like stuff. Tell me how you'd feel about a nomination. Karen 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for catching the MainLead booboo, guess i shld shld start looking and reading before editing. :) Doldrums 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I kept your synopsis because it was better written, but I used the whale image because the logo background wasn't transparent. It's still a neat logo, though. Karen 18:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cooler topic ("Related Wikinews"?)Edit

I didn't want to get with your style guide post because there have been other implementations that make sense too, like 'Previously related news', 'Related Wikinews', (maybe that's the best of the other ways to header it).

To me, 'Related stories' can sound almost like a fairy tale... but it is a highly accurate heading, since what came before is no longer news. -Edbrown05 07:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

'Related reports'? -Edbrown05 07:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
To me, a report is a listing of facts, not necessarily a story. Yes, there's some implication that "story" may be a work of fiction, which is why I suggested changing it to "news". The only suggestion you've made that I like is "Related Wikinews". Maybe together we can push for some consensus on that section header choice. Karen 20:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Referer vs. referrerEdit

Believe it or not, when referring to the website that led to you the website you're on now, the correct spelling is "referer". This is due to a typo made when the Apache server was first made a while ago. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 05:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Right - I know that. I'm just correcting the mistake. Does that mean you're going to uncorrect it? Karen 05:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC) (See HTTP_referer)

Yes. Oddly enough, it's been used for so long under the radar that it's considered correct now. Like American English. —THIS IS MESSED OCKER (TALK) 05:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll just put quotes around it so people might suspect something's different about it. I'd hate to perpetuate an error. Karen 05:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

US soldier arrested for rape and four murders in IraqEdit

Please do not revert the addition of images to the page as there is a discussion going on in the talk-page and my version is the latest one since the discussion with Birdsmessenger began. Thanks. PVJ   (Talk) 11:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Your version is not the latest one. Sorry - see talk page. Karen 11:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please look into this 3RR.Edit

I was recently blocked for 24 hours by Cspurrier for breaking the three revert rule on the Iraq rape article. I have temporarily unblocked myslef (I will block myself so as to complete the 24 hour period), to inform you that though Ealturner also broke the 3RR (as I had mentioned on WN:ALERT), no action was taken against him. Please look at the evidence provided and take whatever action is needed.

1)First Revert 2)Second Revert 3)Third revert 4)Fourth Revert 5)Fifth Revert

PVJ   (Talk)(Opinions) 07:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I happened to be reading it when I got the message. I was thinking that after-the-fact blocks are only punitive, not as useful toward the story in progress. I don't know what to say, except I'm sometimes disappointed in some admins' actions - jumping to action instead of discussion. Yes, you're probably not the only one who acted inappropriately. I'll admit I didn't always do my best, either. You need to post links to reversions that others have done if you want them to be made aware of their actions in the 3RR case. Karen 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Nontheless, I do not think it fair that I should be the only one blocked while Ealturner goes unpusnished. I have temporarily unblocked my self and, after Ealturner is also blocked, I will reset my block so as to compltete the requsite 24 hour period. I, once again, ask you to ensure that equal action is taken against all involved parties so as to remain fair. PVJ   (Talk)(Opinions) 12:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I asked for clarification - if you went unpunished the first time with just a warning, is that what is happening to Ealturner? Keep discussing in Admin action alerts. Karen 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Double redirectsEdit

Don't worry about fixing double redirects — I have a bot that is periodically ran to fix them. —this is messedr͏̈ocker (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

When I cause or observe double or multiple redirects, I just fix them. If you bot gets there first, then that's less work for me. I appreciate knowing I can leave for awhile knowing the redirects will be eventually fixed, though. Karen 23:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


Category:Movies basically exists to say "use Category:Films instead". So when there are articles in Category:Movies, the link can be followed and one can fix the category links to Category:Films. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite the lack of actual film, they are typically called "films". Wikipedia follows this convention as well. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 08:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought about this, too, but then thinking that if "Movies" appears as a redlink, they'll get confused and create it. Category:Movies can basically be used as a holding category, and then at the right time, articles can get transferred. As for the template, if you take a look at Category:Movies, I copied over the layout of Category:Politics. —this is messedr͏ocker (talk) 08:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutralizer 3rr title violationEdit


On the day after concensus reached. Against protests in discussion. Ealturner 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please also note Neutralise "NPOV'd" this article[6]. 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)

just a reminder...Edit

that tha speliing, and grammer erorrs, and typos are accumulating and accummulatin and noones' their to correct them Doldrums

==Headline writing==Edit

Would you share your thoughts on the headline (and article) ""Jezebel of Jazz," Anita O'Day dead at 87"?

It was changed to ""Jezebel of Jazz" Anita O'Day dies aged 87," which has conflicting tense.

The understood articles in the original head are 'was aged,' though it was changed with no discussion.

Thanks! Mink Butler Davenport 00:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

New Policy has users up in smokeEdit

Hello. I am not sure if you check this page anymore, but I thought you might be interested as to what is going on here at Wikinews: Wikinews:Image use policy/New wikimedia policy action plan. I am outraged as well as you have an opinion? DragonFire1024 09:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for de-adminshipEdit

We are currently in the process of voting to de-admin some admins who have not been active recently, including you. If you wish you could say something at WN:A. Thanks. Bawolff 09:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

== User:Hailey C. Shannon and User:Karen ==Edit

Hello, what, if any, is the relationship between these two accounts? Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)