User talk:ShakataGaNai/Archives/2009/October

Active discussions


pls help

hi.. i am sorry i don't know about wiki rules..whats wrong with may article? it is an important news and i couldn't find if anyone gave this news. that's why i tried to give. i am sorry if it is wrong please help me with it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose.jaaan (talkcontribs) 05:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you can write your own articles here at Wikinews, but you cannot copy and paste from other locations. So if you want to write something, in your own words, please do. Then you can cite your sources that you use. Remember, you have to start from scratch writing it yourself. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 16:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this ...

ShakataGaNa, Could you take a look at the following svg on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikinews-breaking-news-2.svg and see if I did everything right. I think this may look cleaner at low resolution than the original. Let me know what you think. ;) Calebrw (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nai! Like Bill Nye! Anyways, I swaped it up on {{Lead 2.0}}. I see the change you made (IE Removed the shadow). I think it probably isn't a bad idea, but the shadow gave it a bold look, so if you are going to remove it, make the text bold. As it is now (see User:ShakataGaNai/Main Page) it looks kinda funny. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am vandalising ur page

D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Brynn (talk) 01:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Thanks :) --millosh (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deadminship

Hi SGN ... just a heads up, Skenmy started a proposal to have your 'crat and admin privs removed at WN:RFA. Please make a statement if you wish. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 19:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict - thanks TDV :) --Skenmy talk 19:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawan per discussion on the RfDA - I will be posting a new section below. --Skenmy talk 19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that you will not be commenting on my concerns below? --Skenmy talk 20:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Grave concerns

As you have chosen to ignore me on IRC, and two of our peers have suggested I try this before continuing with the RfDA, I am willing to try, if you are. Please do not consider this bad faith, sour grapes, or any other kind of attack on yourself, as Cirt seems to think it is. I am concerned that you are mis-using your administrator privileges.

The first concern I have is of these promotions:

17:07, 23 September 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Shoone from (none) to Editors ? (He's trust worthy, I know him IRL. Besides, hes a VERY good c/e'r)
01:35, 21 July 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:James Pain from (none) to Editors ? (he's been around for, like, forever)
02:53, 4 June 2009 ShakataGaNai (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Brynn from (none) to Editors ? (I know her, she's responsible.)

None of these users were passed through WN:FR/RFP - which was an official policy at the time of your promotions. Can you explain your reasons for circumventing policy here?

A second concern I have is the one I highlighted to you on IRC, your overzealous blocking of established, constructive user User:Rayboy8. Rayboy8 was given a single piece of education for a relatively minor offence here. The next "offence" was met with a slightly off warning from yourself here. This, again, should have been an education attempt, not a hard slamming of the rules. The user does not know what they did wrong! Perhaps some constructive comments, links to WN:C, etc? If these "offences" really are breaking policy, which is something I dispute, then this is where the first warning should have been applied. Instead the user was treated to a barrage of unconstructive comments that practically condense to a threat. this warning was for this content (which was subsequently deleted) which was an obvious copyvio. No objections to this one. This is the first "serious" offence. The first block, of 48 hours, was applied for the evidence listed in this comment by yourself. This is unacceptable. Can you explain your reasons for this block?

Your second block, of 72 hours, was for good reason but entirely too long based upon the evidence above. I do believe, however, that you were only acting on what you thought was right and applying the next level of block, so I have no issue with the length of this block. What I have an issue with is your comment to an established, hard working user here. This is unnecessarily hostile and unhelpful to a user who has contributed constructively for the majority of his Wikinews career. Can you explain why you felt the need to have such a harsh comment, rather than a block template?

I am also concerned about your general attitude here on Wikinews. I will stress again, before Cirt or someone comes along and unfoundedly places personal attack messages all over the wiki, that this is not a personal attack, rather constructive criticism about your behaviour here on Wikinews. You seem to feel that the power of blocking and unblocking rests in your hands, which it technically does, but is the threat of "swinging the banhammer" really an appropriate way to relate to our blocking policy? Is it befitting for you to note that your patience has run out, and therefore apply a block? Pateince has nothing to do with being an administrator - when the policies dictate we do something, it is done. Will you accept my comments here? I have no power to ask you to change your ways, but please understand that, as you have so put it, someone whom you have the utmost respect for has grave concerns over the way you behave here on Wikinews.

ShakataGaNai, I hope that Cirt and Tempodivalse are right, and that you will engage in discussion regarding these issues, rather than block me out as you did on IRC. I was clearly clouded and angered by your comments on IRC and took a harsh action that I do now regret, but I am not counting out the relisting of the RfDA or other dispute methods should you not wish to engage in discussion here. --Skenmy talk 20:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

Please be careful when reverting edits, check to see if they are not legit first: this edit was entirely legitimate (and backed up by the sources), but you reverted and added {{vandal warning}} to the user's talk page. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 00:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I did, I picked a source at random to check and it was the original spelling. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Help

Thank you for your help. You're a bureaucrat, you could help me further :) Greetings, Tilmandralle (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellard38 (talkcontribs)

Your recent deletions

Hi, just thought I'd point out that the "Some information by this report was provided by AP" message that is on some VOA articles doesn't mean that it's no longer PD. From what I understand, that notice doesn't mean they copied material from AP but simply used them as a source (which doesn't infringe copyright). Also, why are you deleting articles like Vice President Biden Travels to Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Teachers in Zimbabwe End Strike After Three Weeks and Gates: 'No Alternatives' to US-Japan Security Accord ? They seem newsworthy enough for our standards. Comments like dont they have enough problems without teaches? and man, no one cares about the sudan, it's like in some remote country or something aren't exactly informative or helpful either. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a special tag or prod or something for these sorts of articles might be better? Cirt (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I know that. I also know we've got freakin a hundred articles in the newsroom. I was using any reasonable excuse I could to cut them down to a more manageable number. If you _want_ to work on one of those articles, restore it. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, although i'd still have preferred them to stay, I wanted to work on some of them. We probably should consider creating a separate section in the newsroom for "Bot-imported articles" or something, to stop them from drowning out human-made articles. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, those news are full length news, but my bot has some bug in relation to some of the news. Please, check the source in such cases. --millosh (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I kinda assumed that was the case Millosh, I didn't think that VOA would publish one line articles, but to be honest... we had way too damn many articles. We had probably close to 50 open, I really was just using it as an excuse to delete some of them. It's either fast and loose with the deletions, or we crank down on the bot so it can't import nearly as many articles. No one is gonna work on anything if they can't find it in the newsroom. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of WN:SGN

  The article you created WN:SGN was marked for speedy deletion by Srinivas. The reason given was: redirects to user namespace have to exist in user namespace. What is the rationale for this article to redirect to User:ShakataGaNai? If you oppose this deletion, tag the article with {{hangon}} but please do not remove the tag till the dispute is resolved. Srinivas 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Site notice can only be seen by those logged in"

Regarding [1] = Are you sure about that? I tried logging out, and could still see the site-notice. I think it's visible to both logged-in and anonymous users. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

According to mw:Manual:Interface/Sitenotice it shows because we haven't set the anon notice, so I'll do so. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay, makes sense. I didn't know that. :-) Cheers. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 18:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "ShakataGaNai/Archives/2009/October".