User talk:Vonbergm/1

Active discussions
Talk page archives
Archive 1
Sep 14 2005
Apr 13 2006


Vonbergm/1, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- NGerda 03:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Msgs, develop, and moreEdit

SailWiki is one of my personal wiki projects, which is why your signature does not show up.

I returned the article to the developing stage because, at that time, there did not appear to me to be consensus the article had reached publishing stage, and it was missing elements such as categories which allow it to appear on the topical and regional portals. It is common practice to return articles to development when any editor believes they are not ready for publication.

Sockpuppets, as you may be aware, are multiple accounts created by a single person or a small number to give the appearance of a larger number of editors. I do not have reason to believe you are not a sockpuppet. - Amgine/talk 20:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

You mistake my statement: I do not believe you *are* a sockpuppet, but neither do I have reason to believe you *are not*. Your account was created at point in time when a number of sockpuppets were created during a dispute over an article. If I had specific evidence your account was a sockpuppet it would be blocked permanently, in accordance with Wikinews policy. - Amgine/talk 22:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I do apologize for causing you any distress, but I do not apologize for being unable to determine if you are, or are not, a sockpuppet. I simply do not have access to tools which could determine decisively one way or the other. And I am unwilling to make a determination which is not based on facts. I will not apologize for being unwilling to make such a determination, but appreciate your position. Regards, - Amgine / talk 07:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't catch it...Edit

The article is Arrest warrant issued for Tom DeLay - Amgine / talk 05:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what this means?Edit

"the game outlined in the IRC-channel 'leak'." --JWSchmidt 02:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't find the rest of the logs, but here is some of it, including the bit Simeon posted. I'd be happy to give you my perception of what happened, but I'm not sure it would be perfectly objective. - Amgine  03:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing tagsEdit

Hi! Please do not remove tags without gaining consensus on the talk page. Consensus does not mean majority. - Amgine 18:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to explain a bit more precisely. White phosphorous smoke is slightly more unpleasant than unconfined woodsmoke; somewhat more acidic (woodsmoke has more sulphuric acid, but less moisture) and definitely "thicker" when outside. I know this because I and thousands of other military recruits were exposed to it; and none of us appeared to suffer from the "extremely corrosive" effects in the lungs and internal organs. It is a deadly munition, and once ignited cannot be put out by normal means, but the article contains serious misinformation regarding the smoke and appears to be doing so to push the claim it is a chemical weapon. - Amgine 18:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not have time to watch all WN articles. I'm RC patrolling on three wikimedia sites as it is, as well as my personal projects. The problem I see is that wikinews contributors are not patrolling themselves - while I *encourage* having an agenda, this should not lead to reporting misinformation or outright lies. People with an agenda are some of the best reporters if they just let the facts speak for themselves. - Amgine 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: PollEdit

There is absolutely no reason for the poll. If you see someone on the wiki trying to use it to justify a consensus (or etc.), it should automatically be rendered null-and-void. The poll has absolutely no meaning. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Think of it as an ordinary online poll. It's meaningless, because it's not scientifically based - but yet it gives people the results of the participants' opinions. But yes, it may be meaningless - but so are half the issues on the water cooler. :P. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
? -Edbrown05 00:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

pre-war intelligence infoboxEdit

Have you looked on Deletion Requests? I know the template isn't there, but that's where you'll have to bring it up to at least get a copy put on your user space by one of the admins (my suggested compromise). If you do that then you'll have to be really ruthless on what you remove the associated category from. I can't remember how I voted when this came up for deletion, but I certainly felt that there were a lot of pretty tenous links to the topic being made to collect stories together in a way that implied a POV we should not be emphasising. Please try and make a good argument for getting this back as if the thing does get out of control again and articles start to look POV because it has been added then it'd probably come up for deletion again. Brian McNeil / talk 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The template is back, but you're going to have to be pretty ruthless. :) Brian McNeil / talk 20:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Check with User:Chiacomo (administrator), he's already done a few. Brian McNeil / talk 21:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Q: Should existance of an "infobox" be a pretty objective matter of the number of stories on the topic? If you have a lot of stories on it, why not have an infobox?

The argument seems to be that the infobox is POV since all news coming out recently that relates to the pre-war intelligence is critical of the administration. Of course, if there were also news stories relating to the pre-war intelligence that would make the administration look good, there would not be a problem. Still don't see how that makes the infobox POV.

Shoot the messenger! --vonbergm 01:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In some situations, I can see that as a reasonable conclusion, namely if there are few article, but all are bad. In such a situation, creation of the infobox was maybe targeted at a POV choice of subtopic. However, once a specified number of articles is reached, the infobox ought to be automatic, unless there is another candidate for topic. If pre-war is felt to be POV, then all pre-war articles should go in the Iraq war infobox. (Just goofing around with cut & pasting the whole discussion to make the message tags work right) Nyarlathotep 02:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Tried to list the category for undeletionEdit

[1] But I seem to have zapped the discussion page somehow,sorry. Neutralizer 03:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a note: German translation - German BND claims U.S. exaggerated Iraq WMD claimsEdit

Hello Vonbergm, I assume your interested to take a look at the translation:übertrieben_Hinweise_auf_Massenvernichtungswaffen

BTW: In the discussion you'll find some notes from the magazine Die Zeit referring to BND's estimation of Curveball's reliabillity - 2003 and 2004. Thanks for your article(s)! Cesimbra


  1. Yes, I have a static IP. I was not logged in at the removals of the RfdA; my logins last only a couple hours at a time, and I should have checked to see if I were still logged in. However, anyone could have enforced the policy on that page.
  2. There are policies in place governing RfdAs - one of them is there must be a basis in abuse of admin privileges to request those privileges be revoked. I would ask you to consider it thusly: what you suggest is to discard the rules concerning removing the relatively minor privileges which are used to enforce the rules. What is the point in that?
  3. I would welcome bringing an RfdA for locking a page in which he was involved in a dispute. I do not think it would be silly, but it would certainly be petty. Imagine how much more petty is an RfdA which has no basis.
  4. Escalation has already occurred in bringing the request for deadminship. Repeatedly bringing requests for deadminship without basis is clearly vandalous, in addition to disruptive, and should be treated as such.

It seems to me, since the community has not yet found consensus to alter the existing policy, it also does not have consensus to support violating that policy either. And the policies exist, imo, to reduce conflict by having something to point to and say "this is how things are done here." - Amgine | talk 07:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

From WN:A: Further, evidence that an admin has abused his privileges must be provided. - Amgine | talk 18:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, no, I believe you're mistaken. The sentence clearly defines the subject as an admin, thus the object (privileges) would be those of an admin. - Amgine | talk 18:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The only "privileges" of an admin would be ous ability to protect or unprotect pages, to delete or undelete articles, and to block or unblock user editing; these are the only elements which meet the definition:
A peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor; a right or immunity not enjoyed by others or by all; special enjoyment of a good, or exemption from an evil or burden; a prerogative; advantage; franchise.
- Amgine | talk 19:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Editing is not a privilege of an admin. It is a privilege of a contributor. - Amgine | talk 19:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The word privilege refers to those benefits, advantages, etc. which are peculiar to the class discussed. "The privileged classes enjoying their privileges." (Philadelphia Story) - Amgine | talk 20:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid you continue to disregard that the pronoun "his" stands for "the admin's". This is not a "common" interpretation, but a legalistic one. - Amgine | talk 21:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
To sum the argument: what are his (the admin's) privileges? - Amgine | talk 21:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes. The class to which the admin belongs has a specific set of benefits. Those are the privileges. The others are not privileges; they are not peculiar to an admin. - Amgine | talk 21:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Quite the opposite; the term 'privilege' clearly provides necessary and sufficient. Thank you for your thoughtful inquiry into this, but I have explained my reasoning and your arguments quite reinforced the interpretation, and I do not wish to discuss this further; it is interfering with my other duties. - Amgine | talk 23:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

user privilegesEdit

About your comment at User talk:JWSchmidt#RfdAs, I'm not sure that anyone has yet posted a good test case for evaluation of a Wikinews admisistrator's actions. Of course, the way that the history of this wiki is contantly erased by the administators, it is hard to know for sure. I am in favor of trying to get to the root of the problem. I have previously suggested that there should be an organized study of institutional bias at Wikinews. There should probably be an Ombudsman section of Wikinews where all complaints about Wikinews are described and evaluated and cannot be erased by anyone. --JWSchmidt 03:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What I mean by "test case" is where someone goes to the Administrators page and documents something more serious than an editing dispute. For example, "administrator X blocked editing of page Y on date Z in order to win a reversion war". If there were past cases where RdfAs provided evidence of vandalism, abuse of blocking powers, etc then there should be a list of these kept somewhere. One example that I know of that seemed to be an editing dispute was about Mrmiscellanious and "threats". I agree that Mrmiscellanious and other Wikinews administrators often do things in ways that are needlessly confrontational, but I feel that this usually arises from differences in personal bias between thes administrators and other Wikinews editors. I think that these bias problems need to be systematically explored and documented, but holding a vote about removal of administrator status is not the way to deal with differences in the biases of Wikinews editors. When I say "institutional bias" at Wikinews, I mean that there are people who make claims such as, "I am not allowing this news article to be published because it does not meet Wikinews standards of quality," and they do so mostly when the content of the article is a story that they do not want to be publihed because of their personal biases about the subject of the story. Mrmiscellanious has indicated that his only reason for being a Wikinews editor is to counter the editing done by others such as Neutralizer. This kind of "war" between editors is "institutionalized" because the people who started Wikinews have certain biases and and they have worked to defend those biases. Editors such as Neutralizer also have their biases. A way must be found to allow everyone to play in the same sandbox without throwing sand. One way to work towards this goal is to try to document cases of bias. Another positive step would be for Wikinews to better support research and methods for producing good articles. Disputes between editors with different biases usually degenerate into a version of, Editor A, "The article does not do a good job of explaining X." while Editor B says, "The article seems good to me." Wikinews needs a way of resolving such arguments. In my view, the best way to do this is to have the editors do good research, compare sources, and clearly document that they engage in an open process of conflict resolution. Wikinews administrators should take the lead in this kind of conflict resolution, but they have so far failed to do so. --JWSchmidt 15:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"There has been no good effort to document problematic behaviour of administrators"
True, but the problem is deeper than just problematic behaviour of administrators. Every individual has a limited POV and Wikinews needs a well-developed system for dealing with that problem. Many administrators either do not see the problem or they think that the current system can deal with the problem. I have been starting to think about ways of using Wikiversity as a tool to research the problem of editor bias at Wikinews and as a way of providing training to Wikinews editors in how to research and write Wikinews articles. It seems like there should have been a conflict resolution system in place to deal with a growing problem before the 6 month block of Neutralizer ever happened.

"MrM for example has violated policy in protecting an article (the al-jazeera article) that he was involved in a dispute about"
Which article was this?

"NYT is categorically not a reliable source that should be used on wikinews"
I would like to see a systematic effort by Wikiversity to study media biases. Wikinews editors could participate in such a study and develop methods for dealing with media bias.

"When it comes to Neutralizer, I agree that he also has problems to keep his personal bias out of articles"
I have not been around Wikinews enough to have solidified views about individual personalities. Neutralizer is a puzzle. I have no idea what to make of things like User talk:Neutralizer#Articles in progress (Bird Flu "Feature" Article #1, Title= The greatest enemy of all--Infectious Disease). As a biologist, I have helped edit several Wikinews articles about bird flu and I like the idea of a Wikinews article that would relate past flu pandemics to the current bird flu problem, but I find it hard to see what Neutralizer wrote as being "ready for move to "developing" as of Nov. 27". If I had the time I could work with Neutralizer to develop a bird flu article, but I'm not sure that such a topic is really his main interest.

"Neutralizer seemed to have made an honest effort in the mediation process, whereas Amgine essentially told the mediator to shove it when he did not like the mediators suggestions regarding himself."
And yet it is Neutralizer who is now on a one month ban.

"Personal bias....drives wikinews....this is ok as long as the personal bias only enters in the choice of the articles one invests time in, and does not creep into the text of the article."
Well, that is the trick. Even if we try not to be biases, we all are. The system has to protect us all from our biases. Objectivity comes from a community and we have to figure out how to make a community that can smoothly achieve this function.

"One approach to deal with personal bias could be a mentoring program"
This is the sort of thing that is done in the real world. I think our goal must be to translate such conventional (non-wiki) solutions into wiki format, into a new kind of solution that works in a distributed online format. We all have to mentor eachother. We need to build into Wikinews easy-to-ude mechanisms for accomplishing such mentoring functions. --JWSchmidt 23:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"the way that the history of this wiki is contantly erased by the administators"
sorry to eavsedrop, but if there's any deleted content on wikinews that you want to see, if you give me a good reason I could probaly undelete it or email it to you if you have a valid reason for wanting to look at it. Bawolff ☺☻  23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

About the protecting of this is hard for me to reconstruct just what happened, but it looks like the page was protected at 19:53, 23 November 2005 by User:Mrmiscellanious. It looks like the policy "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with" was violated. --JWSchmidt 13:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


My vague understanding of the above is that a RfdA should wait until one has a collection of abuses, not just one or two. Infact, an early RfdA is counter productive for a number of reasons, including the fact that the admin is likely to actually correct the behavior, but only just slightly. If you think someone is abusive as an admin, just keep a good list, and wait foor it to get long enough. Next circulate it around a small group of like minded people, making sure that there is consensus that ALL violations on the list are genuinely perceived as violations by your group. Finally someone who has never made a FfdA should make the request, enumerating the list and including evidence. Page protects when no edit war exists, page protects while involved in the editing, user bans while in direct conflict over an article, etc. are all good reasons for banning, but you going to need more than just a couple. Its also a good idea to look at the admins contributions, and see how many are to talk pages vs. articles & admin activities, whiile not a criteria itself, its clearly a measure of contribution & will weigh heavily on many people's decissions. If MrM is your target, the protection of Alleged Bush-Blair Al-Jazeera bombing transcript leaked is a clear violation, and should begin the list. Its might even be a beginning to one for MessedRocker, as the existance of an edit war is highly questionable. Nyarlathotep 17:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I did mean the "only just slightly" with respect to an admin changing his habits. Slight changes of habits in junior people is great, but senior people can make only slight changes without actually adressing a systemic bias. I see nothing wrong with people having "targets" for de-admin, it actually seems healthy as the necissary lists don't get built otherwise. Heck, I don't even object to people "setting traps". As there is no official time limit on adminship, one should try to eliminate admins who are either (a) confrontational or (b) implementing an agenda, as less confrontational or less POV admins are appointed. Nyarlathotep 18:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: NPOV on Talk:Bush secretly authorized NSA domestic eavesdrop of international conversations without court warrantsEdit

You need to ask the originating user for more information, and it is not common courtesy to dismiss such a tag so unilaterally. The user feels that he has a point, and as a contributor you should respect that claim and work with him to understand what he is saying. Removing a tag because you disagree with the claim isn't being very respectful, especially when you so easily dismiss the claims on the talk page. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 18:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether they read the sources or not, you should have been a little more hopsitable. Maybe left a ==Welcome== Vonbergm/1, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: '''Our key policies''' - if you read anything, read these! *[[Wikinews:Neutral point of view]] - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way *[[Wikinews:Cite sources]] - everything in a Wikinews article ''must'' be sourced Here a few pointers to help you '''get to know Wikinews''': *[[Wikinews:Introduction]] - overview of the site *[[Wikinews:Writing an article]] - how to write and publish a complete article *[[Wikinews:Content guide]] - what's suitable for Wikinews *[[Wikinews:Style guide]] - how articles should look before publishing *[[Wikinews:Contents]] - the contents page. There are always '''things to do''' on Wikinews: *[[Template:Latest news|Existing articles]] need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes *The front page lead articles often need [[Wikinews:Newsroom#Lead article|updating]] *[[Wikinews:Newsroom#Articles in development|Developing stories]] need finishing and publishing *[[Wikinews:Water cooler|Discussions]] need your input *[[Wikinews:Audio Wikinews|Audio Wikinews]] could always use more contributors *And of course, stories need [[Wikinews:Writing an article|writing]]! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!</nowiki> on their talk page, or at least told him to review the NPOV policy (even a link to it would've helped). But the message you left would be very troubling if I were a new user. But, go about on your own ways, I guess... --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy proposal Re; Time limit for AdministratorsEdit

hi,; hope you can support this I just put this on the watercooler policy section

This is an urgent issue that must be addressed now,imo, because an integral condition for exercising administrative authority here on wikinews is stipulated to be "You are trusted by the community"[1].

I have designed a very simple policy proposal. Our past attempts at dealing with this sensitive issue(e.g.ArbCom proposals) have been unsuccessful,imo, because of their complicatedness. I would simply ask, if possible, that this proposal be given an "up or down" vote (with associated comments of course). Any attempt to complicate OR DELAY IT (especially by existing administrators) could be seen as suspicious behavior, I think. Administrators who have the community's trust have nothing to fear with this proposal.


1. As of Feb.1,2006, adminships will be for a 1 year term. 2. All existing non-Bureaucrat adminships will terminate Feb. 1st. 2006.

3.Nominations for renewal of existing adminships will begin on January 24th.




Sock puppet:Edit

You might wish to check my talk page at wiktionary, as well as the conversation between Gd and myself regarding a user (see the first "revision") on Wiktionary. This is only one specific example of a series of sock puppets which have been involved in my nomination on Wiktionary and my RfdA. - Amgine | talk en.WN 03:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

18 killed in U.S. air strike on village in PakistanEdit

I am ashamed of you and the way you axted in this article. The reports state that DNA tests are/were being done. So it does belong in the article. Also if you want to talk about what was "reported at the time" as you stated in the articles talk page, then you would agree that Zawahiri was the target...but only want to believe what you want and not what the reports say. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 12:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


In the 24 hours or so Neutralizer was back from his wikivacation he made many edits, of which I believe at least 3 or 4 were not disruptive, POV-pushing, or harrassing. I particularly liked one of his article title changes. Due to the extremely low ratio of beneficial edits to detrimental ones, the multiple edit wars he engaged in, the use of community pages to harrass contributors, and the lengthy history indicating the user's inability or unwillingness work collaboratively within the community I placed him up for de-editing. I can certainly provide examples of each of these points, if you feel it is important to the case. - Amgine | talk en.WN 17:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


I believe there is a list of possible candidates somewhere on Eloquence's talk page which I was once asked about. Otherwise there may be one somewhere in my talk page archives; I can look for it tomorrow. No, there is nothing requiring adminship for arbcom membership. I would expect anyone who is knowledgable of Wikinews policy and trusted by the community to be nominated for adminship, too, though. It's sort of that the requirements of adminship are likely to be somewhat less stringent than the requirements of arbcom. - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I will see what I can do to make it more prominent. (Assuming others haven't already done so.) - Amgine | talk en.WN 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
If you have been nominated (I just got back, so don't know what is happening), politely decline on the elections page, explaining you do not feel you would be an asset to the Arbcom at this time. I appreciate your candor, though I would have supported your nomination. - Amgine | talk en.WN 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


You need to stop harassing my articles. If you continue to do so I will call for admins to look into your actions. You are refusing to read sources in the articles. DO NOT continue to move articles into dispute because of your political beliefs, DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"helping out"Edit

In this case there was a dispute which appeared to have a basis in the sources. I would have used the {{sources}} flag for this issue, rather than the {{NPOV}} tag as it was a misstatement of the confirmation, in my opinion.

Where there is conflict, sometimes it is better to suggest word or text changes on the talk page, and work out a compromise there rather than jumping in and editing the article. Again, in this case it was a small change required, and completely based on sources, so I jumped in. - Amgine | talk en.WN 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

re; ArbComEdit

OK; Best wishes

Paulrevere2005 18:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You are blockedEdit

You are blocke for 4 hours for violation of WN:NOT on Pennsylvania man named in alleged terror plot. I may be reached on IRC, via e-mail, or you may contact me on my talk pag after your block is expired. - Amgine | talk en.WN 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Explanation: violations of WN:NOT: #1.5: Wikinews is not a theater of war. #2.5: Wikinews articles are not works in progress.
I agree you were a calm participant in the activities on this article, however the actions of all involved resulted in site disruption due to violations of WN:NOT. In examining the edits to this article which led to the edit and revert warring you also, via revert and not through inclusion of your own material, engaged in adding material which should have been placed in a new article rather than continuing to update an old one. The initial issue came with a user receiving bad advice from an admin, who was given a 24 hour block for his involvement in this case, who expanded the published article with new information. Other users involved in this case and engaging in disruptive violations of WN:NOT were blocked for 8 hours. Please see my entry at WN:ALERT regarding this case. - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You were blocked for being a part of a site disruption by multiple persons. The method of disrupting the site was multiple violations of WN:NOT, revert and edit warring. That you did so is not in question; that your intent was to disrupt the site is. I agree you did not intend to do so. However, you did. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC) - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
"rv edits of DragonFire1024 to last version by Deprifry -- insufficient reasons for edit given, see talk" - Amgine | talk en.WN 19:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi TeamfriendEdit

Jason is quite cool sometimes, or not International 13:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I look a NGerda, a sign out... i can't finish it, yeah... i think Jason is cool... nic is , too california. -Edbrown05 09:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Would you be willing to accept a nomination for adminship? - Amgine | talk en.WN 05:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

re: IssuesEdit

Yes, my mistake for cursing, sorry, and I'm surprised at myself. I think that I'm a little mad at Nick (which is wrong of me) for dropping his involvement with Wiiknews, suddenly like dropping a stone. I don't understand it (the not understanding it also bothers me). -Edbrown05 07:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

(Context)--> Nick introduced the {{Develop}} and {{Publish}} tags to Wikinews and did major work in a short 3-month burst. He seems still involved with Wikipedia. -Edbrown05 09:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My 3RR ProposalEdit

I've called for a vote on the 3RR proposal. Could you please indicate your support. StrangerInParadise 05:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolutionEdit

You are right, I did originally intend it to be a collaborative excercise in examining edit history, but I felt constrained by the WN:DISPUTE format. However, I like the way that it is going. Despite what many may say, the wiki is people. I think that focussing on the behaviour may be missing the point: the problem lies in the relationship between contributors, and the way to fix a relationship is to be honest about the way we feel. It's a little touchy-feely, I know, but I'm a touchy-feely kind of guy. - Borofkin 02:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, when one brings a request for dispute resolution I have two considerations: has the bringing party attempted the other steps outlined on the dispute resolution page; has the bringing party informed the other party of the dispute resolution request? - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - joint statementEdit

Hi Vonbergm... I've started a draft joint statement as part of the dispute resolution process. Please take a look.... - Borofkin 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

MrM and RfArEdit

I have listed the issues with Mrmiscellanious for arbitration as the WN:DISPUTE process is pointless at this stage, due to MrM having no interest in responding- Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 09:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have now added my name as an involved party. Neutralizer 14:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolutionEdit

Do you really think any mediation will affect MrM's behavior? Neutralizer 07:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm a bit confused; it really annoys me that after keeping us waiting 12 days MrM can just wave his hand and stop our Arbcom request in its tracks...or am I looking at it wrong? Neutralizer 07:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I will go along with the rest, I suppose, when it comes right down to it, but I really don't think its right for Chiacomo to be saying that MrM now controls our arbitration request. I spent about 3 hours today on my arbitration statement. Neutralizer 07:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
ok, I've settled down; I really worked hard on my arbitration statement(you should see all the edits it took me to get it right) so I was really upset that I may have wasted all that time. I'll give mediation a try if everyone else wants to. Neutralizer 08:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I am really frazzled about this; mainly cause of how hard it was for me to do the arb. statement; I told Ed this. Neutralizer 09:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, as you can see from my edits,I got little sleep last night. I am not used to doing things like that arbitration statement and I was really on edge when I finally finished; so I was in no shape to read that email from Chiacomo saying that the arbitration request was now under the control of MrM.. I will try to get some more sleep and come back to Wikinews later. Neutralizer 13:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I just got back online and your message just came in. Everything you say makes perfect sense. One thing I wonder about though, I went through a DR with Amgine awhile back and Amgine completely rejected the remedy proposed by the mediator;last 2 paragraphs. After that experience, I worry that MrM might reject any mediator's findings as well. I also worry that since it has already taken so long that some of the five involved in the Arbcom request might just lose patience and drop out of the process if it just seems like its just a waste of time. If MrM were to reject the findings/recommendations of the mediator, I am wondering where would that leave the request for Arbitration? Do you know? Neutralizer 17:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
ok; I see then that the mediation is good to go with even at this late date. Count me in. I will let'em know on the DR page. Neutralizer 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re; my comment to IroniridisEdit

  • My comment was meant just as a retaliation to his accusing me of voting against his adminbecause of his edits. I considereed that accusation very insulting so I tried to do a "comeback" that was supposed to get under his skin like his "dissapointing" comment got under mine. I couldn't even stand my own comment so I changed it to a triple negative which basically negated the damn thing. The bottom line is, it wasn't meant to be taken as anything more than a silly comeback comment.
  • It was stupid and wrong for me to make that comment so I am going to send a big apology to Ironiridis along with an explanation that I hope shows it was not meant as a serious accusation. I also really appreciate you drawing my attention to the wrongness of my comment. Neutralizer 14:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

RE: Bush attempts to give reason for Iraq warEdit

The inclusion of only one quote, which is lengthly at best, and a response from Bush does not warrant a title like it has. The title is obviously biased, since that seems like a reason for the war, and he gave it - he didn't attempt to give it. Editorials are not allowed in the mainspace. Please refrain from putting them there. If needed, please review WN:NPOV again. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I refuse to allow a biased article into the mainspace. Shape it up to conform to the NPOV policy, then move it back in. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for ArbitrationEdit

Your request for arbitration has been accepted. Please visit Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious/Evidence and begin adding evidence. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Constructive criticismEdit

I can't speak for MrMiscellanious, but having just taken my first look at your article, here are the issues I see with it as a news article:

News event: this is a question and answer in a press conference. The president effectively refused to answer the question, which he has been doing for 3 years now. I don't see it as a news event personally.
His reasoning seems to be in direct contradiction to the fact that Saddam Hussein allowed inspections of suspected weapons facilities in the run-up to the war all the way until the inspectors were withdrawn upon the request of the U.S. and that he gave a disclosure of his weapons programs that since has been proven to be accurate.
Citing direct contradictions (supported by sources) to his full statement might be possible in a news article, so long as the focus of the article is on the news event.
The final paragraph appears to be a mildly incoherent continuation of the rebuttal.

Basically, it seems to me this would need to be dramatically over-hauled to avoid either interpreting or editorializing. The question, the response, and the specific points where Mr Bush was wrong (or mis-stated, and his team prefers to euphemize it.) - Amgine | talk en.WN 00:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hans BlixEdit

Sometimes it flies, sometimes it dies. I was interested in the interaction between Helen and President Bush. Your interest seems to go beyond that, to a level I appreciate, but am not prepared to believe could be established with that news conference. Maybe I'm wrong though. I truly am interested in why, on a personal level, Dubya went to war. I'm sure hundreds of thousands of people have hundreds of thousands + explanations, but your wiki try is the one I am interested in. Best regards. -Edbrown05 05:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the somewhat smug selection by President Bush of Helen for the next question during the news conference. And then his polite, but persistent, interjection of his answer while she attempted to illicit follow up clarification as to exactly what the question was. -Edbrown05 05:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Funny, I did recall from yesterday in the early stage of this story your request for a picture addition. After posting the picture, and then browsing the discussion page, I see that we agreed on the pic choice! Or maybe I remebered your suggestion was something like that :) Best regards. -Edbrown05 02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: chillEdit

Beg your pardon? —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't sweat it. I was just a bit frustrated that it managed to get published even though there was a spelling error. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews:Requests for arbitration/Users Cartman02au et al v MrmiscellaniousEdit

Can you please add your evidence to the Evidence page - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 06:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my RfAEdit

Hi Vonbergm. I don't feel like we know eachother that well, I hope to resolve that in the future. You seem like a really reasonable and intelligent person. Anyway, thank you for supporting my RfA. I appreciate it a lot. :) irid:t 22:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:Lead articleEdit

forgot that! thnaks for catching it. Doldrums 16:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


nice work on the bioweapons article. sorry i wasn't around to help out on it. Doldrums 06:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Vonbergm/1".