|ARCHIVED TALK PAGES|
|Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6|
08/12/2005 | 10/03/2005 | 10/24/2005 | 11/27/2005 | 12/23/2005 | 01/27/2006
|ARCHIVED TALK PAGES|
|Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12|
02/17/2006 | 03/12/2006 | 03/21/2006 | 04/07/2006 | 04/23/2006 | 05/07/2006
- 1 International Context
- 2 Duplicates..
- 3 No Personal Attacks
- 4 Brazilian "suspicious character"
- 5 Briefs
- 6 Cats on Hotel quarantined after anthrax scare in US state of Michigan
- 7 New Main Page design proposal
- 8 censorship by US government?
- 9 Nuance
- 10 RE: Deleting others comments
- 11 News Contest
- 12 Good enough?
- 13 The awards...
- 14 Help !
- 15 Good luck
- 16 Thank you
- 17 An award for your helpfulness!
- 18 Thanks!
- 19 Commandos
- 20 Google DNS
- 21 Current DNS failure -
- 22 Current DNS failure -
[] there is more than the connection of simply breaking up a party. Ok hte CzechTek this thing was not 100% legal but it was at least a discussable overuse/misuse of state/police power to abort the festival. So some free european online journals also draw an analogy between this two events see
I understand. But the link that you provided is, well, not really an article. I can't really duplicate a non existant article, can I? 22.214.171.124 22:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
No Personal Attacks
I feel as though you are making personal attacks and threats on me; "As of now, "Neutralizer" you are very heavily stepping on the boundaries of the NPOV policy." and you said it on an article discussion page.
- Please stop it. You said something about treading on NPOV. Please expand and clarify exactly what you are talking about. As far as I am concerned ; you are the one with too much POV. If it's too POV just edit it out, is that too much trouble? Neutralizer 23:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Brazilian "suspicious character"
It sounds as if you don't realize that the term,for the purposes of the latest story, was yours and yours alone. There was nothing in the story or sources whatsoever indicating the dead mad was a "suspicious character" and yet you put that characterization of him right in the headline. Since you do not see anything wrong with that; I don't see how anyone else can explain it to you. Nothing personal, I just have difficulty relating to your way of thinking. Hmmmm. Maybe I can explain it like this. You are on a jury where a policeman is charged with manslaughter for shooting an unarmed man in the head 5 times at close range; and on the first day; before any testimony; another juror says to you; "I read in the paper that the police said that the dead guy was a suspicious character". A; What would you think about the other juror? B; Would you pass on that information to other jury members? Neutralizer 04:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- I thought he sounded like a "suspicious character", based on supposed eyewitness accounts that he:
- 1) Was wearing a thick, padded coat in July.
- 2) Refused to stop when challenged by police and ran to the subway car.
- Those eyewitnesses were apparently lying, but we weren't the only ones fooled. The mainstream press was also fooled. StuRat 22:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
As I understand it, you need to add the Brief Category to your briefs, otherwise they end up in Developing Stories. And then Dan100 goes round deleting them, etc etc :) ClareWhite 16:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I've put back the cat's on the article Hotel quarantined after anthrax scare in US state of Michigan, which is basically what I have on task to do for tomorrow (is to start the cat's for MI). --Mrmiscellanious 21:25, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I will leave them alone. A couple thoughts:
- 1) Adding the categories before you link to them would avoid ever having any bad links and would keep me (and others) from deleting said bad links.
- 2) Aren't we getting a bit too specific in the categories ? Unless we actually have a reporter in Midland or Midland county, this may be the only story in those categories for a long time.
- StuRat 21:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I love the title of this section "Cats on Hotel quarantined...". What, do they have feline distemper ? Somebody get those diseased cats off the roof ! LOL StuRat 13:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
New Main Page design proposal
censorship by US government?
Regarding your raising the concept that the US government might censor us, I think this is completely silly and I would like to ask you to reconsider your remark. I placed this on the water cooler discussion:
- Mr Miscellanious, this is a rather absurd accusation. You should be embarassed about it. We have here in the United States the First Amendment, which I will defend to the death if necessary. There is absolutely zero chance of anything like what you are suggesting happening here. Believe me, if I am ever contacted by any government agent depanding that we shut down or tone down a story, it will be a huge international news story. Period.
Raising FUD about what we are doing is not helpful. There are real things to be concerned about, and spreading the idea internationally that the US (despite being the best jurisdiction in the world for the kind of thing we're doing) might censor us, is irresponsible. --Jimbo Wales 15:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I would like to point out that there are certain cases where we should support censorship, such as when a court tries to keep the name of a witness to a Mafia killing secret, so the Mafia can't find and murder the witness. Publishing such a name here would be thoroughly irresponsible and tantamount to murder, IMO. This was a fictional case, but we had a real case recently where we published a list of alleged UK spies, which could endanger their lives and the lives of the people they endeavor to protect by discovering terrorist plots, like 9-11, the Madrid train bombings, and the UK subway/bus bombings (the harm we did was reduced by the fact that this list was published elsewhere first). Of course, there are many other cases where censorship is purely to protect politicians, like when Bush tries to keep info on the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq secret. Thus, we should consider each attempt at secrecy on it's merits and self-censor ourselves if the motive of the censorship is just, but not if the motive is unjust. StuRat 22:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The way I see it is that when governments become repressive or even fascist; it doesn't usually happen overnight. Hitler came to power long before he started killing Jews. The process always includes fear of perceived and real government powers and also a sense of patriotism whereby the citizens feel they have to "protect" their government and society by censoring themselves and others; and by reporting others; in effect becoming citizen informants. So,unfortunately, that seems to be the direction America/UK is headed and since wikinews(English) has so many westerners, it's predictable,imo, that we would also head in that direction(more self censorship and administrative controls). I don't think the younger people here can imagine how pissed off I get to see that an american can be arrested for holding a protest sign[][] or singing a new song by M&M or an old song by Dylan (that apparently includes lyrics which someone may interpret as being a threat to the president)[] [].
These new laws now in place (patriot act,threatening the President) feed the self censoring mentality and cause the citizens to empower the government even more by abandoning what little freedoms we have left. Martin Luther King was convicted over 50 times and his marches on Washington would not be allowed today. Today; anyone convicted more than a few times for civil disobedience would soon find themselves in jail for life; so the fact is; freedom of speech and the press have been severely curtailed and are close to downright castration. Even being a successful author does not guarantee one's freedom of speech anymore[]"He(Hunter Thompson) sounded almost sorry he had threatened the life of Dubya’s dad during a speech at Marquette University. “To an auditorium filled with 3,000 Jesuit gentlemen, no less,” he sighed. He compared then–Vice President Bush to Nazi architect and Hitler buddy Albert Speer. Called him the “meanest yuppie who ever lived.” Described him as an “evil demoniac politician.” Thompson admitted to me, “I got carried away. I said in fact that George Bush is so guilty that if you of the Jesuit persuasion believe what your faith believes, then you would have to stomp George Bush to death.” He paused. “Then I called for a vote. They believed it, 2 to 1.” The old Thompson would have dismissed the outburst as funny, like the time he accused NBC newsman John Chancellor of spiking his drink with black acid. But not after the Secret Service came out from Denver to talk to him, and an “agent said my life might become a series of terrible misunderstandings if I even thought about going to Washington without consulting him first.”
From J.Wales comments, it appears to me that he may not realize how bad it has gotten in the past 3 years and,to me,Mr.Miscellanious's comments(and others) are more indicative of the citizenry shifting toward a general acknowledement and acceptance of how one testicle of our freedoms of speech,association and the press has already been chopped off; and the bloddy hatchet is in the air ready to come down on the other one. The only chance we have is to fight back like hell right now; but do we have the will?
So I have to agree with both Mr.M and J.Wales; The U.S. government can shut us down; but only if we(the people) let them. Paulrevere2005 12:07, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
There is no 'nuance' here. I hope we all try to allow for that. I hope we all try to write for that. I hope your skin is as thick as I think it is. -Edbrown05 20:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Can you define what you mean by "nuance" ? StuRat 22:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I was separated from my wife for a period of nearly two months recently while she was visiting/helping her Mom. Besides using the telephone, as a novelty we also stayed in touch by using 'internet chat' software. I've known Pat for 20 years. It took all of those 20 years of knowing her to understand what she meant by her written words. -Edbrown05 00:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
RE: Deleting others comments
i was partly cleaning up and removed a little too much with that i guess, but i stand with removing one bad remark, if that is vandalism im happy to be banned for it. some things simply shouldn't be posted and will only give this place a bad name and cause flame wars that aren't allowed either. the stuff i did remove and were put back are pretty typical in my opinion, wiki news isn't a soapbox but that user is constantly using the talkpage for that goal. even going back in every related news and adding the comment to talk also. Boneyard 08:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that there are things that should be removed from talk pages, but they should be really bad, like death threats, to deserve such treatment. Things that are just stupid, annoying, and redundant should be ignored instead. I would also like to see 2 discussion pages, the existing one for discussions on changes to the main page plus a page for people to list general opinions. Hopefully this would serve as a "lightning rod" for people to list conspiracy theories, their alien abduction stories, etc. and thus keep the REAL discussion page free of that crap. StuRat 11:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Fellow judge, I could use your input on how to handle an issue that has come up, at the "Judge's Forum" section here:
Thank you, StuRat 13:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
- How about now?--Jason 22:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
There are three which I should give you. The persistance award, for vandal (and troll) fighting/tolerance, and the silver trophy for your many excellent contributions and edits. But the one I'm giving is the Barnstar for achievement. Thank you very much! - 126.96.36.199 01:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
- Me tears up! --Mrmiscellanious 01:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Note to other English-language judges: I feel I am doing a disproportionate amount of the judging of English-language articles. Ideally, I would like to see all judges render an opinion on all articles in their language. I will not be doing any judging today, so could especially use some help now. Also, please respond to the issues I have raised on previous dates in the Judge's Forum:
StuRat 14:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for volunteering to improve the AOL/Microsoft article. You're the best 188.8.131.52 23:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
What's the problem with the article? You said it needed two sources, I added one. Just stop interfering please unless you have a sensible explanation. Coqsportif 01:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Frankly I'd doubt you know. Stop interfering with the article if you have nothing to contribute. Sorry to sound mean. Coqsportif 01:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Don't want to sound mean, but I'm just totally not interested in your opinion unless you have specific criticism. Your assertion that it is unpublishable is completely unsubstantiated. You said it needed another source, I added one. Now your criticism is too broad to be meaningful. Be specific or buzz off. Coqsportif 01:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, very much and I'm glad to be apart of the Admin team. --TUFKAAP 01:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
An award for your helpfulness!
Thank you for the "support" vote towards my accreditation! Hopefully, many people will think the same towards me, and I will be able to contribute to a further degree. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV tag you had attached to French ferry raided by military forces. First, the normal practice is to discuss what elements you think are not NPOV on the talk page, which you did not do.
Second, though I replaced "commandos" by other vocabulary, I disagree with your claim that "commando" is slang or unprofessional. I note that the definition of commando in an English dictionary is a member of a military unit trained as shock troops for hit-and-run raids, with no mention of slang. Second, several sources claim that the group that boarded the ship included personnel from the Commandos de Marine, which are exactly that: shock troops used for amphibious assaults. The rest of the group was from the GIGN, which is also a military unit trained for law-enforcement raids. Submarine 07:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the Google DNS article: Yes, the error did happen previously, however it happened again today. Tropical storms happen for an entire season and they are still reported on — why should technology news be any different?
Current DNS failure -
Current DNS failure -
Actually, there was a dns failure yesterday becuase some users were again redirected to SoGoSearch. I used multiple computers and browsers to verify this.