User talk:Adambro/Archive 1

=25 April 2007=

Welcome
, 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ), 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! DragonFire1024 20:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

=17 June 2007=

4.5-kilometre bridge to link Crimea with Russia
Hi, you say i`m violation copyright by posting the news "4.5-kilometre bridge to link Crimea and Russia". I want to notify you that i am the author of this article on www.russia-ic.com and as the author i have the right to publish articles written by me on other websites.

Natalya —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LNatalya (talk • contribs) 07:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

=18 June 2007=

Image:Army of Islam - Al Jazeera.jpg
Hi, could you please provide the link to the BBC page that has this image? It will be deleted if you cannot provide the source. Thanks.  —FellowWiki Newsie 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that, I've corrected the URL. Adambro 18:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

=19 June 2007=

Re: Missile story
It is one sentence long and yhere is no information on the event. Journalists write news stories to inform people. One sentence is not journalism. I'm sure not many readers will benefit from a report that is one sentence long.  —FellowWiki Newsie 14:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * However since User:Maximusnukeage considers it to be breaking news and Breaking news says that "It is very important to post and publish an article as soon as possible about the event" and "This is the only time you should publish an incomplete news article" so I would be of the opinion that it was appropriate. I also can't see anything in Content guide that offers guidance about article lengths or a minimum content. Thanks. Adambro 14:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes but how long would the article stay as a stub on the main page? I'm not very keen on publishing one sentence articles, especially when they are breaking news and more information needs to be added immediately.  —FellowWiki Newsie 14:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but I just feel that its better for us to get a short article published than wait until more details are available in a breaking news situation. I wouldn't have thought such a short article could remain in that state before someone expanded it. Adambro 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have a point but I was worried that it would stay as a stub. Anyways, when I publish breaking news articles I never wait for other people to add information, I do it myself.  —FellowWiki Newsie 14:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

=20 June 2007=

AWB
You should have access now: AutoWikiBrowser/Request. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Adambro 14:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Photojournalism
There have been attempts to coordinate things on meta: Scheduled attendance for Wikinews or Commons and Press corps. Both proved unsuccessful because nobody maintained the pages.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's certainly disappointing that this hasn't worked in the past. I don't think coordinating our efforts here is the most effective though, there are of course hundreds of Wikimedia wikis and so by working at a higher level would increase the ability to get images for events.


 * Perhaps Commons is the most suitable place for this. Certainly there are more photographers going to be lurking there so the chance of getting an image is much higher. What we really need is some kind of shared calendar which users can post events likely to be of interest to Wikimedia projects and then other users can indicate whether they intend to attend. I'm not sure how appropriate a Wiki is for this task though.


 * There may already be something along these lines on Commons, I don't know. Adambro 18:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

=21 June 2007=

Commons admin
If i remember correctly i think at some point you said you were a commons admin. If so your help is needs at. Thanks and sorry if i got it wrong. --Mark Talk 10:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I've checked out the deleted image on Commons and replied at WN:DR. Adambro 10:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

=22 June 2007=

RE Images to commons
I have my reasons for uploading my images here. One being that several of my images in past articles were deleted without notice or any attempt to inform me both before or after the deletions. Since then, which was about a year ago, all my work, relating to Wikinews articles have been uploaded here, and I prefer, at least for now, to keep it that way. DragonFire1024 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I had those issues and I don't want to have them again. I cannot recall those names and it would require me digging through at least a year of edits to find them. I have never had a problem uploading news related images here, as that is what it is for. I understand that users would like them on commons, but until I can have trust in Commons that they will not delete images, I would like them to stay here. DragonFire1024 16:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was reading this, and thought you might be interested in some of the history behind a large portion of wikinews (in general) really hating commons'. (Yes this has gone on for a long time). Basically Commons in the past did go on deletion sprees,(this is before undeletion of images, commons ticker, or anything like that), without telling anyone, and we found out 6 months later. After that we continued to hate them more and more (to the point of sort of almost forking them). Anyways as of recent comnmoners have been nicer, and relations have improved, but a lot of people still really don't like them. (for a more detailed version of this rant, see the middle of this email (note, not entirely current)). Bawolff ☺☻ 05:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for that Bawolff, I appreciate you taking the time to inform me of some of the context. Hopefully better relations with Commons will address the concerns. I certainly don't think hating Commons is particularly constructive way to approach another project. It is of course important to recognise the limitations and potential problems but there are many advantages to using Commons if these can be overcome, despite the often highlighted point that Wikinews differs from some of the other foundation projects such as Wikipedia. Having a free image repository must surely be an extremely useful resource for Wikinews.


 * As you may be aware, I'm a Commons admin myself, and am surprised that someone would go on a deletion spree without dealing with the consequences of their actions on the appropriate project, however I think that the likes of the Commons Ticker will help with this. I think it is important for Commons admins to get themselves involved in the projects where the images are used as opposed to simply spending their time working on Commons so I'm always happy to help out here where my Commons admin rights can be useful, such as above on my talk page where there was a query with a deleted image.


 * I really want users here to get out of this position of hating Commons and learn to appreciate that if an image has been deleted it must have been done by a human, who of course do make mistakes, the Commons project itself is not a fault. I noted a comment on WN:DR about how perhaps one solution could to be to tag images on Commons as being of importance to Wikinews and so shouldn't be deleted. However, surely this is unnecessary since an image is only going to be deleted if there is a problem with it. Any images which cannot be on Commons for whatever reason should be uploaded here however free images should most certainly be not. Uploading free images to Commons is by far the best solution regardless of some Wikinews editors position on the project. Adambro 10:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Brianmc on 26 June
I don't hate Commons, I hate the way some people on Commons don't take into account where images are used on other projects (I think Commons has its fair share of (c)-free zealots). I am very busy with work at the moment (yay! more money!) and can't really go into this in the depth I would like to. To corrupt a DTP expression, I believe "What you've seen is what you should get" ... If you come back to the same article in 6 months time. Exceptions should be where an image has turned out to be a (c) vio. and a note should substitute for the image, I am going to see where that should be incorporated into our guidelines when I have more time and look to put together a template to replace deleted images.

As you probably know, communication online is often prone to poor reception and misunderstanding, if you go dig on Commons for how Wikinews' WeatherChecker app was received you'll see why some people aren't happy about Commons.

Finally - as you've probably guessed - I'm fairly disgusted with the way the board handled the new licensing policy. There was no consultation with projects that have local upload enabled (i.e. us). As far as I can tell this was a piece of idealism based primarily around similar principles to those of some Free software groups and people such as Richard Stallman. I am not aware of any analysis being carried out to assess the impact the new policy would have on sites which are run by volunteers, and a severe lack of people skills/consideration meant the policy was imposed from on high without consideration of the conflict it would provoke between idealists and pragmatists. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by DragonFire1024 on 26 June
Also, it is not just my opinion of commons or how they operate, but its my choice. It is not required by any policy anywhere that my news related image be uploaded to Commons. It might be preferred but not required. I am well aware that it could be better to upload there, but 95% of the images I take have nothing to do with anything on commons and frankly serve no immediate purpose there. They describe a specific event at a specific time and are almost likely not to be used anywhere else. At least thats how I see it. DragonFire1024 10:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it is a nonsense that someone who seeks to represent editors by joining the board of the foundation cannot recongise the benefits of uploading free media to the Commons project. When you upload an image here it says Please upload all images under a free licence to Wikimedia Commons, which whilst is only a recomendation it seems very disappointing that you as an admistrator on this project go against this. You emphaise that many of your images are news related but I fail to see how this is relevant in jusitfying you position; they are free images so are best uploaded to Commons, end of. By doing so, for example, other language Wikinews would be able to use the image.


 * It appears I'll continue to be able to keep myself occupied moving free images from here to Commons where they should have been uploaded originally. Adambro 11:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can sort out what - from the outside - looks like a jihad against commons:Image:Trophy.jpg then that might help restore some faith I might have in Commons. HOWEVER... their deletion approach does NOT assume good faith and they do not make reasonable efforts to contact uploaders of the DR. this leaves me to personally monitor every image I ever uploaded to Commons to have some hope that some rogue administrator doesn't delete them because he/she doesn't like the color of my hair (in other words delete it because it serves no logical purpose Commons.) It has happened before, it has and IS happening with the trophy, and I do not trust Commons, in this regard, as far as I can throw them. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your comments about Commons are bizarre, I do not understand how you describe the DR of the image as jihad. Questioning where an image has come from is not not assuming good faith. We need to know where images come from regardless of who uploads them so others can verify the image is available under an appropriate licence. Even an established contributor may make mistakes or there may be disagreement over interpretation of what permissions the source allows.


 * You need not worry about your images being deleted for images are only deleted with good reason, providing your upload complies with Commons policy it won't be.


 * Regarding commons:Image:Trophy.jpg, simply linking to the source does not make it possible to verify the licence so the info is inadequate. Unless such information can be found then the image should be deleted. I do not see what the fuss is about. This isn't a particularly important image which is used on a handful of user pages as an award. It would be straightforward enough to find an alternative if an image of a trophy is so important. Adambro 17:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We have other pictures of trophies (like Image:Ligue des champions NB.JPG). The issue is that this picture is of high historical importance. Honestly it is part of the history of this project, and we want to keep it. Although logically it really means zip, we still want (for lack of better words to express myself). If commons deleted Image:Barnstar.png, you;d certainly have a bunch of angry wikipedians. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the deletion log regarding the trophy and then you might understand better. And as I said I am speaking from my experience.
 * The point is 2 years ago when it was uploaded it was good and was verifiable otherwise it would have been deleted then. As Bawolff said on its talk page, once PD always PD...if it was then, it is now.
 * In regards to my images, my argument stands, and have noted on the talk pages, of the images you moved so far, for them to stay as a local upload (in other words, to not be deleted here. As I stated, until some of my faith in Commons can be restored, I do not trust their system of deletion.) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you honestly consider yourself an appropriate candidate for the foundation board? Adambro 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to but in here, but how do the issues DF has with Commons influence his suitability as a candidate? One of the issues he has raised in his candidacy is that inter-project cooperation and board member access are poorly managed at the moment. Commons earned the reputation they have amongst contributors here, I appreciate you're trying to do something about that. However, don't expect your efforts to be easily accepted if you don't admit there have been issues in the past.
 * Commmons is a really good idea, but it has to exist to serve the other Foundation projects. They do not have a good reputation here because they are not seen to have made sufficient effort to avoid interfering with our content or informing us in a timely fashion to allow us to respond to deletion requests for media used on projects such as ours. Yes, this is them erring on the safe side - and I appreciate a large volume is uploaded to the site every day - but not everyone monitors what the ticker warns us about. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

=27 June 2007=

Project news
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 09:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcomes
I'm not sure what the policy on other projects is, but when I first started welcoming people here I was told to wait until they make a contribution so you can decide whether to welcome or warn.

I don't know what the various pages for the signup process are in the MediaWiki namespace, perhaps we can incorporate some sort of welcome into those - or (probably with consultation with developers) something in the welcome email.

I don't want you to stop welcoming people, but I'd like your thoughts on this. I have your userpage on my watchlist so you can answer here if you like. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)