User:International/arkive1

--Cspurrier 21:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

test


 * Just wanted to say hi. (Cspurrier beat me.) Happy editing and welcome to wikinews. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 01:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks International; Wikinews needs you !!
For your hard work on the White Phosphorous story. Wikinews needs more gutsy reporters; please try to give wikinews whatever time your schedule allows. Neutralizer 19:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing my concerns
Could you also look at "The Italian documentary showed photos of what it said were Iraqis who had been burned by the white phosphorous and white phosphorous smoke ." The underlined section is not supported by the sources. - Amgine 19:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

A fair warning to Mrmiscellanious.
It is obvious that you abused your administrator power. As you say there was no editwar at the time. Me and other editors did not engage in what could be a tagwar that you may have started by your way of editing and depublishing. I argued and showed patience because there was a editingprocess and discussion on talk. The article was put to develop two times by you and was republished after 14 hours editing and compromising. You unpublish it again and locked it. Now this was to initiate a "war" as seen on this page. And as above talk condescending about "a group of three or so editors" as I was a part of is a insult. This insident alone is enough for me to ask for your deadministration. But I only warn you this time. You really must change your attitude immediately and if you understand the gravity of this you really watch your behavior and act like a good administrator kept apart from your role as a editor that i might complain little about but it is another thing that is solved on talkpages each time durin the editingprocess. So be warned, the least step close to missusing your administrational power again will result that I use my right to ask for your administratorstatus to be revoced. With hope of future respectfull and constructive co-operation on wikinews project.International 18:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "So be warned"? Well, now that I know you're threatening users, I'll take that into very serious consideration.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Im not happy about this answer but not interested in hairsplitting. I hope you see your administrator possition as commission of trust. If you missus it, it may be revoced. That is worth very serious consideration. International 22:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not view that as a serious consideration. I have a life, and this isn't a large part of it.  If I'm de-admined, I honestly will not care about it.  But instead of threatening users, I'd prefer to be more subtle about my feelings of others and keep them to myself and be courteous.  Perhaps you'd extend those same courtesies to others?  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I dont want you deadministrated. You do alot of good work here. Im happy that you have a rich life. I dont generally threatening you or any other users. I think you care about Wikinews. Keep up the good work! International 00:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

:)
i see you took interest in 28nov EU article. i made some minor edits, but thought item needed a complete re-write, perhaps based on a different main source. would this have been appropriate? how to go about it? i am completely new. also, there is typo in headline but i didn't fix because i thought it might move article. --Cogito 17:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

that quote
I didn't see it in any of the listed sources. Do you have a source for it? -  Amgine | talk 03:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I found it... sorry about that. Now to grumble about LA Times splitting up its articles into three parts (somehow I don't think it's for courtesy of their low-bandwidth browsers).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible 3RR violation
You do have a good point where you say that Chiacomo and Mrmiscellanious could be teaming up, however it should be noted that Chiacomo could be acting as the neutral party intervening in the page-move war. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 00:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't wish to be the deciding party of the name &mdash; I started as a neutral party in this dispute, and wish to remain that way. Currently I am asking Chiacomo some questions to see what his involvement in page-move war is. Until we have all the answers, I've blocked the page from page moves. —M ESSED R OCKER (talk) 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to jump into the middle of an ongoing conversation, but all I did was rename the talk page to the same name as the article (which had already been move protected)... I'm not getting involved further. --Chiacomo (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy proposal Re; Time limit for Administrators
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.

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.

SUPPORT;

OPPOSE;

COMMENTS;

Links
I added some links to the WC page... --Chiacomo (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My point in wishing to limit discussion in the voting section proper is that if an RfDA, DR, etc has reached the point of voting, it is beyond discussion.. If we must still discuss the issue, that discussion can go on the appropriate talk page. It'll make a cleaner page, surely. The rants and vitriol that I mentioned are not limited to any particular group here at Wikinews -- both sides of every argument recently tend to user strong language and engage in lengthy explanations. If we're still discussing, we shouldn't be voting (voting is evil, by the way). Am I rambling? If so, I'm sorry... :D --Chiacomo (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Santa story
I like the way you did that story. I also feel like I would risk offending you if I said that I like the way you hold to the facts. So forget I said that part and Merry Christmas :) Edbrown05 04:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed Articles
You cannot publish disputed articles. Especially when the disputes are not resolved. Even an administrator said that. read over the articles talk page. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 20:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Do not do that.
Do not blank the lead article template. Because this template is displayed on the main page such an action vandalizes the main page of Wikinews. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 01:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"5. Wikinews articles are not works in progress. Developing articles are marked with the 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." You have edited a published article. Please do not do this. Edits will be reverted.DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 09:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There was a statement added to the article by a Doldrum. It contridictd the article and its contents by doing so and made the artilce misleading. So I deleted it. Plus artilces that are published, like that one, can not be changed once published. Especially previous days news.
 * The names of the terrorists came from a source listed. I made sure of this before adding the info. If you continue to edit this article, I will inform Administration. You are in violation of POLICY. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 10:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

sorry for being harsh
International, sorry for being a little harsh during the discussion. :-) I felt that we had the same concerns and was trying hard not to escalate the situation. This can be quite difficult, especially when having to deal with clearly ridicuous comments. Amine's edits addressed exactly the concerns you and I raised, and in its current form the article should be acceptable. (although I feel that it would have been better to wait a little until there is more reliable and less contradictory information available...) Keep up the good work! --vonbergm 01:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Category
Please remember to add categories to your news. We have plenty of portals but they display news only if there are present in some categories. See my change to No evidence of dead terrorists in US bombed Pakistan village. --Derbeth 08:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:International/casepage User:Mrmiscellanious
I have moved this page to your user space, and replied to your comment there. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 09:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Aziz Photo
Hi, Good work on this article ; I inserted the photo Deprifry|+T+ found; is that ok? Neutralizer 20:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

npov of New tribe
Why this article is not neutral ?
 * I do not think that article about secte could ever been neutral. And the link to their "news" page is a sample.
 * The more media speak about secte, the more they're happy.
 * Before your article I do not know the existance of this group, now i know them.
 * It's good, or it's is bad ? i must ask the question.
 * Frankly, the npov flag is a question i ask to the wikinewsiers, no more, just to aware.
 * may be some anti-clergyman french culture ?
 * i did want to hurt you in any way, if you feel angry, sorry i didn't intend that at all. Jacques Divol 09:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked
You have been blocked for disruptive behaviour on talk page and article Pennsylvania man named in alleged terror plot for 2 hours. If you would like to discuss this block, I am available in IRC, or via [mailto:amgine@saewyc.net e-mail], or you can discuss it on my talk page when your block has expired. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 01:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your block has been increased on examination of your edits in the past 24 hours. Your block is for 8 hours for disruptive behavior on talk pages, articles, and main page templates, and violation of WN:NOT. The same routes of communication as above apply. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 02:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your block was applied on examination of your edits in multiple articles and on talk pages. That examination determined you had engaged in repeated disruptive behavior, including vioaltions of the WN:NOT policy, specifically secstions 1.5: Wikinews is not a theater of war, and 2.5: Wikinews articles are not works in progress. I did not, and do not, make an evaluation of the content of that article. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 20:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Jason/Dragonfire
Intreresting not so little speculation you have. But you better make an analyse what led to the protection of said page and not come with acusation that just show disconection. The locking of the page yesterday was a result of "editwar". An editwar you was higly part of. Thats just a fact. You can blame anybody else more than yourself fore this editwar.

The positions that led to the dispute is easy to understand if reading the talkpage of locked page. I stand at my point that since you self continued editing after publishing you are not in a position to deny others to do it within reasonable time as Opalus did. By that and the timebumping  your unspecified refering to WN:NOT is without merit. You disputed my and others view and put yourself in a editwar. I read that your views are unchanged unfortunately.

Your acusation about editor teaming up for "INTENTIONALLY delayed publication" is redicilous if you have any means of see what happend. If so you are a part of this team if yoy dont se us all as meetpupets for Amgine.

Talking of meetpupets and teeming, look at yourself and Mrm. Btw bring in the subject of pow here. The editconflict was about quality not about pow wich was disputed in another article. Wich leeds to pow about US. I cant understand how you dont see your own pow on the subject. Some USamericans looks like some cracy fundamentalistic Iranian guys. Its like some kind of nationalistic blindness. Its a pity for the majority. This is my view and pow. International 12:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I blame YOU for the dispute. And I also blame the others involved. Your POV on the US has no basis her, nor do the others POV. If you cannot abide by the NPOV policy, then Wikinews is NOT for you. I reverted based on WN:NOT as I was upholding policy. The article was published and it was published after a major edit and was not disputed for a whole day until you and your "team" came along. Jason Safoutin 12:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL! I think you need other things than hamburges to eat. Studeis pointing in the dirction that nutrious and healthy food make on feel better. International 12:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever you say. I have no more time for you. Jason Safoutin 12:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If I have to I will revert again. You need to read WN:FAC and read what a featured article needs to be. Once you read it, reply here and give me a good reason as to why that the Pennsylvania article is NOT good enough for the featured lead. Jason Safoutin 16:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, according to your reference you are the on that shall motivate the featured article. International 16:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Motivate? What? Pont is the article you want is not written well enough for any lead. See WN:FAC WELL WRITTEN. Jason Safoutin 16:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Im tired of your general incompetence. After last dispute I am not going to read your own references for you. Do it yourself and ****! International 16:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Team friend
Yes, I definitely am your team friend, international. I agree with everything you did with the article; please try to encourage Opalus to come back....I miss him/her already. I just put a bit of my view of the final article here. Neutralizer 13:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have long ago stopped to take Jason Safoutin seriously, he seems to have serious difficulties in reading and his writing generally makes no sense. And on the rare occasion when it does, he misses the point. So I try to limit my responses with him to the bare minimum that rudimentary politeness (and the possibility that his comments actually turn to become relevant) dictates. --vonbergm 17:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This has the makings of a conspiracy of the reasonable. StrangerInParadise 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, not so sure about that. I would rather characterize it as a loose conglomeration of people that gets regularly frustrated by the behaviour of certain editors or admins and seek comfort and support on these issues (especially when the going gets tough), but that in general have their own minds and no problem openly disgreeing with each other. :-) --vonbergm 22:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is what a conspiracy of the reasonable is all about. The Wikimedia Foundation principles provide reasonable people who disagree a framework within which to dispute and produce.  The current situation on Wikinews warps this, it is why it is so odious. StrangerInParadise 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help with my first story. It was very kind of you.Baffledexpert 19:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thaksin escapes Constitutional Court scrutiny
I don't mind if you want to move this to 2nd lead, I felt the prior Featured story was only of interest to geeks and a little short for the placement. There is quite a bit of pressure to bring impeachment proceedings against Thaksin, and it is looking likely that a petition to force the issue will reach the required 50K signatures. The issue is getting international coverage...
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In case you haven't read...
WN:NPOV. Based on your recent edits, you have not looked at this in a long time. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please work toward publishing Full extent of Abu Ghraib detainee abuse revealed
Please make an effort to resolve whatever differences you have with other editors and let's get the above article published. I realize that you have strong feelings on the subject, but this is a newsworthy article and the project suffers when we cannot report news in a timely fashion. Please remember that everyone has a POV and that each person's POV should be respected. Also, let's avoid even the appearance of personal attacks in discussion pages. --Chiacomo (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you thought of ArbCom? --TUFKAAP 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just remove the block, there is no 3RR violation hereInternational 17:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WTF is goinng on here! TUFKAAP motivate! International 17:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

TUFKAAP

 * Who the hell gave you wrong info on this! This is all editings from my side regarding images on the diputed article.

17:07, 18 Feb 4 New image Abu Ghraib 12a.jpg in an article in development

03:50, 18 Feb 3 2:nd revert as below

03:35, 18 Feb 2 1:st revert. image Abu Ghraib 13a.jpg back

02:54, 18 Feb 1 removed all exept for one

01:07, 18 Feb 0 edited in lot of images

That is 2 reverts (3 if you interpretet 3RR spuriously)

Now unblock me, explain the circumstanses around this block an maybe act on that. An excuse is not bad if your not lied to. International 18:29, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * wake up !!!

To any administrator
Unblock me, This ****** block is not correct! International 18:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've asked Chiacomo to have a look, I'll also leave a note on the WN:ALERT page. We jailbirds have to stick together. =)
 * StrangerInParadise 19:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I count at least five times of you removing either or  Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You countingskill is dangerous low as i see it. Present the edit that violate 3RR. I think you hold a "grudge" against me. If not presenting evidence of your accusation you are very close missuse your administratior role by not lift the block. I hope you are not affected of the widespread U.S. patroitism-POV disease, you arnt?International 20:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Your block will be over fairly soon. (It was only a five hour block. Note, block log lies) Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 20:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * International, please do not threaten other users. As per the WN:3RR rules, the block is not five hours, but instead 24 hours.  Please refrain from violating this rule again.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 21:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Were is the evidence?International 21:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is the thereat? Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Reverts listed on WN:ALERT. I am sorry if you feel I have a grudge against you, I do not. If you change how you are acting my opinion on this matter will change as well. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 22:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That list dont show any 4:th revert of a single item, though I see on policy that it dont matter as it is says page. Sorry for complaining at your counting skill. But there is more users that broke 3RR in this case. International 22:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for 3RRviolation...against mrm
03:30, 18 Feb reverting external links 1:st time

03:39, 18 Feb reverting external links 2:nd time

03:52, 18 Feb reverting external links 3:rd time

17:40, 18 Feb reverting external links 4:th time

20:54, 18 Feb reverting external links 5:t time

Its the same revert 5 times and if I add other reverts that obviosly cont in there is even more, no good faith here International 22:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dragonfire1024/JasonSafoutin 3RR violation
17:20, 18 Feb 4:th revert NPOW Tag

15:07, 18 Feb 3:rd revert reverted Image

02:07, 18 Feb 2:nd revert NPOV tag

01:42, 18 Feb 1:st revet NPOV tag

01:11, 18 Feb add NPOV tag

Guess he, like me, didnt read policy good enough! International 23:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would consider reverting an npov tag different then a revert of an image. discussing with others. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please discuss on . Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 23:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * web Chat died, if you have an IRC client go on irc://freenode.net/wikinews

Bawolff ☺☻ 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He taged after my constructive tries to compromiss about images. He didnt care that I changed from many pics to one to one without any abused prisoners on. But now I dont care, going to sleep. International 23:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for violating the 3RR rule. --TUFKAAP 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Awards and Things
A suitable award will be handed over to Cspurrier for his genious sense of humour. It will be administrated in about... 3 days... International 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)