Glad you decided to come edit

Welcome to wikinews. Glad you decided to get a user acount, and stay. Happy editing. Bawolff ☺☻  23:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

REALLY glad edit

It is so great to see such thoughtful and well-sourced edits. [1]Neutralizer 04:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Amgine dont like casepage about Mrm edit

Well, I didnt have time to do so much befor Amgine moved it, but I liked what you wrote. Maybe the problem is that Mrm just dont care so much about policy if it dont suite him. But I must say we really have a nice gang here that help each other to keep wikinews whatever their want it to be. International 10:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Edits to: Al Jazeera airs new Osama Bin Laden tape edit

Hello. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia. please do not make changes/edits to past/old articles as they are based on what was reported by Wikinewsies at the time the article was published and are considered historical documents. Please see WN: NOT regarding your edits.


5. Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Developing articles are marked with the {{develop}} template. Once written and published they are historical documents; they should not continue to be updated or changed. Especially, they should not be altered to an angle or POV not reflective of the article as it was published. Wikinews is not an encyclopedia.

Thank you ☺☻  Jason Safoutin 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

A clear demand is made on you talk page for a specific explanation to be provided for the reversion of the Ayman al-Zawahiri releases new tape article entry made as per referenced WN:NOT; no entry has been made knowingly to the article Al Jazeera airs new Osama Bin Laden tape. Opalus 20:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

What WAS REPORTED in the article is whats there. An ADMIN reverted your edits but the policy to that is 3RR]. However I do agree with you the article was published. The revert was done on the Zawahiri tape on January 19. I am sorry I put the wrong title on your page. But however with that siad, WN policy is that it is a historical document once published. Especially one this old. Jason Safoutin 20:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
This article: Ayman al-Zawahiri releases new tape. Jason Safoutin 20:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Then contrary to the statement from Amgine, you state that it is against policy to even add information that is present in a source, in this particularly the story from Fox news references the village name and location but that is not present in the article. What of accuracy? Is the date stamp more important then? What of moving to develop, adding information, and returning to published with new date and rewritten to acknowledge that fact to add the information then? In two years the line in the wikinews article will not be comprehensible as the event mentioned is not adequately described-it must be adequately described to serve as a record and this I believe can be done by simply adding information from the Fox news article already referenced to provide the village name and location. Opalus 20:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well I am sorry there are two admins who have commented on the issue and both agree that the article is to no longer be edited. It is violation of the policy. read talk apge of article. Jason Safoutin 20:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Whether you are sorry or not is irrelevant. The question of adding further detail to the wikinews article to more fully ensure its understanding as a record in the future that is present in sources listed before its publishing date is disputed. One administrator states that only addition of such information provided it does not remove any other information is allowed, two others state that it is not. Is it an informal procedure that in instances of divergent administrative views on violation or non-violation concerning an act that the side to which the first majority is given is determined to be the correct without further discussion? Is there some policy on this somewhere, for future reference is there a list of administrator authority priority for obeying or ignoring particular administrator comments in different situations? Perhaps you or MrMiscellanious are ranked above Amgine? What is the procedure for obtaining a vote on this issue, propose new policy on its discussion page on the resolution of administrator declaration conflicts or administrator rank priority? Opalus 20:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Jason, I stand firmly on the side of Opalus's opinion. Opalus, you may bring this matter to the water cooler for general community discussion if you feel you have hit a roadblock. Neutralizer 21:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Issue now on the water cooler edit

You may wish to comment here. Neutralizer 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Sore head edit

Thanks Opalus. It's probably just my own laziness. Long sentences make my brain hurt. :-) - Borofkin 23:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

3RR Proposal edit

Please see Wikinews:Water cooler/policy#3RR Discussion comment, et sequiem. This community has a fundemental decision to make as to whether it shall be governed by the guidance of rules or the whims of personalities. Now is the time. StrangerInParadise 12:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Userpage Reply edit

I am in no way trying to offend you. I have seen a lot of you work and contribs and I like a lot if not 98% of them. I just feel that I have been attacked in this article. I have nothing against you at all and I am sorry If I gave you the wrong first impression. I do apologize and just believe that with the amount hard effort that went into the article to make it as NPOV as possibe was wasted. This is an event that occured in the US a alleged plot against the US and is reported in the US. But ayways, Ihope yuo do decide to stay. if not then good luck :) Jason Safoutin 05:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Opalus, calling fellow contributors here at Wikinews "fools" is not contructive. Your contributions to news stories is solid. Your positions on issues are solid. Your communication on Talk pages is difficult to understand because your reasoning is conveyed with so many qualifiers. It makes the logical arguments you express sound circular, and difficult to follow. I must admit that I am a "fool" because I haven't the patience to probe your prose for the exact point you try to make. -Edbrown05 06:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply


Winston Churchill kept saying that while London was being bombed by the 20th century nazis. Right now civilized culture and society are being bombed by the 21st. century nazis (don't misinterpret; none of our contributors are nazis,imo, not a single one). Opalus, you won't quit because you CAN'T quit, and still be you...also, Edbrown05 wants you to stay otherwise he wouldn't have bothered to say anything at all; right Ed :)...and I have come to understand and appreciate the way you use the english language. It is somewhat Shakespearean but quite comprehensive,I think, and I would miss you please stay for me if no other reason. Neutralizer 13:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

The Team is backing you edit

Together gainst the evilness International 13:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Please see the Pennsylvania story edit

[2].You had a positive impact,I think. Please come back. Neutralizer 14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply