User talk:Brian McNeil/Archive 09

 This is an archive of old talk page discussions! Do not add new comments to this page, please do so on my main talk page

Archives

Archive 01 &mdash; January 9, 2006 | Archive 02 &mdash; April 6, 2006 | Archive 03 &mdash; June 4, 2006 | Archive 04 &mdash; September 29, 2006 | Archive 05 &mdash; December 9, 2006 | Archive 06 &mdash; March 24, 2007 | Archive07 &mdash; May 30, 2007 | Archive 08 &mdash; November 4, 2007 | Archive 09 &mdash; March 25, 2007

User talk:Betterliving
Thanks for the fix/clarification on the sources, I look forward to contributing with a fair amount of frequency in the future! Betterliving 10:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia Nederland article
Thanks for the notification, and sorry for the dely in replying - I haven't been checking Wikiversity as frequently as I would have liked of late :-(. I'll add a link to my presentation as soon as it's online. Good work! Cormaggio 11:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest trial of the One Laptop Per Child running in India; Uruguay orders 100,000 machines
Hi, answers from Carla added, template of guote changed ;) Przykuta 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you be my chief editor (again)?
As you may have read on the Watercooler, Stevenfruitsmark suggested I simply ask someone if they might be willing to nominally be my chief editor. As you have done so before, it was at hand to ask if you might do so again. I would most certainly be very grateful if you were to :D. Regards Sean Heron 10:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'll do the deed, can you point me at the website where you've to apply so I can see what's going to be the hook to get you in? --Brian McNeil / talk 10:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn´t been so sure (must have misunderstood you), but thank you :D. The online application form is here. I reckon the old letter of assignment (appropriately changed) should do the trick. I do need to fill in your number I think though. I guess I could try worming out of the medias adress (state that we are online only, and have no central adress), but that might be a problem. Otherwise I guess I might use wikimedias adress, but I bet they wouldn´t be too pleased with that. Regards Sean Heron 13:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Now I get it! I hadn´t seen your reply on WC before I posted here :D. Well thank you for being so "entgegenkommend" :).
 * I've looked at their website, shouldn't be a problem to do a letter for you. Gimmie a little more background for bullshitting and I'll email you a scan. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ta, I´ve sent of the application. I´ll get back to you on the letter tommorow (time for bed :D). Regards Sean Heron 22:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Kay, I´ve modified the old letter slightly. I actually wouldn´t have thought that any more "bullshitting" is necessary :) ? What were you thinking of ? Sean Heron 10:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. check out the letters edit history please.

I´ve sent of the letter of assignment now. So, time to wait and see what they decide :D. Regards Sean Heron 15:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC) I´m at the airport so, just a short note: I´ve recieved accreditation and my journalist Visa :D ! I actualy got accredited a few days ago, but between being pretty busy, and having restricted internet access, I hadn´t got round to telling you. Thank you very much again for doing your bit, I´m pretty sure it wouldn´t have worked otherwise. I´ll be creating a user underpage for preperations soon, and I´ll go into more detail on how things worked out shortly as well. Sean Heron 07:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

OLPC article
The article you wrote on the OLPC is really well done. Good job!

Comments' namespace & es
Actually, we've just been trying out how this comments are working... (we haven't asked for the namespace yet). But well, I think we'll get round with the namespace (though I haven't been really active lately); we are still using the Talk:Namespace/Comments 'formula', but I believe that I'll ask for the namespace soon. Anyway, thanks for your concern - Jurock (reply) 19:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Admins page
I don't think this is what you meant do. JoshuaZ 13:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with DPL and archives
Hi! We created on pl wikinews new layout for the main page. Problem is with Dynamic Page List. We don't need number of year on MP :) Next problem is categorization - sorting by time not by the alphabetical list. Heh, I know that talk with guys from bugzilla will be hard, but we have to do it for wikinews archives. Przykuta 22:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You can suppress the date altogether, and from the look of the extent of your coverage that might just be the simplest option. If you want DPL updated to allow "Month, daynumber" without year it should be filed on Bugzilla and then you petition people to vote for it. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at this bug.

 category=Asia category=November 2007 namespace=0 count=10 suppresserrors=true addfirstcategorydate=true 

 category=Asia category=November 2007 namespace=0 count=10 suppresserrors=true addfirstcategorydate=true 

And nothing :( (But maybe I don't know everything about DPL). We can't sort by time categories :/ Users can't find articles in categories, if they don't remember name of these articles, but even they know +/- date (month) of publication they have problem with find article in category Asia. I will talk with guys who know bugzilla better than me. We have not to much articles, but day after day... Przykuta 15:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I bumped into something like that I'd probably ask Bawolff, or post it on the Water Cooler. My efforts playing with this haven't worked, so sorry! --Brian McNeil / talk 17:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Oral Roberts Category
I saw you put a DR on Category:Oral Roberts University. Did you forget to actually put it up for a DR? Because its not on the DR page :) Figured I would ask before doing it myself. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, forgot. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Max Baucus
I bcc'ed you at wikinewsie on an interview that David Shankbone and I worked together. I am not sure why, but I guess I did it to let you know that this interview prep did in fact go ahead. I used my real name in that e-mail and I am not quite ready to use it widely on Wikinews, so unless you have strong reasons not to, I'd prefer you keep it under your hat. The day may come when I seek accredation and then divulge that information to the general Wikinews community, but that day is not yet here. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Saw the mail. I understand. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments namespace on es:
Hi Brian! As you requested me, I'll keep you informed about the application of this to es.wikinews. We've basicly achieved consensus and I've already asked for the namespace in Bugzilla, so we'll have the namespace and I will bug Bawolff if I can't apply your js code to es =P. The actual code has been causing some trouble... So well, I hope the new one solves it... - Jurock (reply) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Best of luck with it, and please do try and establish some guidelines on what you'd delete on sight. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete in what sense? Delete articles, or guidelines on that namespace? - Jurock (reply) 18:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to messages in the comments namespace. If you get excessive swearing or anything like that, you need to have some guidelines where you say "this message is unacceptable, I am removing it". --Brian McNeil / talk 23:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean, for the time being we are using common sense. We don't allow messages that are only insults (if a message is mostly insults, it is removed or the page is deleted if it's the only comment). Of course we do allow constructive yet aggresive comments... For example, here there is a quite tough comment. The article is about a woman in Saudi Arabia who was sentenced to prison (six months) and to be 'whipped' (hit with a whip, dunno if 'to whip' exists) because she was raped... And, mainly, the message is not anti-religious, but it does criticize islam as a whole because of this culture of punishing woman if they are raped (that is, even though it's against their will). But well, maybe the policy could be needed in the long run... The comments says:
 * Barbarians... cruel... irracionals and, at last, unhuman. Is it this what the Coran teaches? Doesn't the Coran say: "treat them well". Fucking Islamic machismo, it vexes me seeing how some countries try to change this and others stay the same... And what vexes me the most is knowing that this sentence is done by a justice court. This isn't justice nor anything.
 * Is this allowed here? I mean, it does include the word "puto" (-->fucking), and it does criticize Islamic countries that do not grant an egalitarian society while it does in a way congratulate those Arab countries which do fight against it... So well, I thought it 'insulting yet constructive'... Would something like this be allowed here? Maybe my judgement is too indulgent, so I wish to know your opinion. - Jurock (reply) 23:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The case you've hit on here is the extreme, and the acceptable end of the extreme. In such a case a regular contributor needs to say something along the lines of, "I allow your comment to stand but some of the language used in it is not appropriate for our site". Look up our Webcomics article and you'll see some serious ranting on the talk page, yet nobody needed to intervene. The real concern is that an experiment like this could get out of hand in terms of the language utilised. I have proposed on en.wikinews that we strike the worst comments and delete them after the poster has a chance to respond. Obviously there is stuff that is "delete on sight" (like death threats), but a balance where a vigourous debate takes place is what we're hoping to see the projects strike with this idea. The long-term goal is to start people commenting then convert them into contributors. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see... Anyway, it has been the only tough-toned comment... At instance, this has been a really nice commentary page... The article talks about the Cuban embargo, and two Cubans have answered (one living in Spain, a little pro-Cuba; the other in the USA, very anti-Castro)... So well, all in all it has been going really fine... - Jurock (reply) 01:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC) (PS: Do you censor/correct horribly written comments? I'm gonna start censoring or correcting... god! Their grammar is pitiful...)
 * While it might be very tempting to fix someone's grammar - don't. It gives you insight into the person making the comment. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's true... Of course I have abided this from the very start... But it is sometimes really awful =P... - Jurock (reply) 20:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You are awesome
Re: Comments:National Church of Scientology recognized in Spain. Spot on. Nuff said. Wilhelm 13:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
 * FYI -- Germany to outlaw Church of Scientology, Associated Press, starting to get picked up by other news services. Cheers, Wilhelm 14:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Accreditation requests
Hi, if you could, please have a look at the current accreditation requests and decide whether it should be granted us (Millosh and me). The time is up since Monday for the last request (mine), so it's really the time to decide. I'd just like to add I'm gonna make some interviews on this Festival, so showing the accreditation to the organizers would be essential for me. Thanks in advance for any effort you'll make, odder 14:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Natasha Khan interview
Brian, I was just contacted by one of the designers of the shirt Natasha Khan is wearing in my interview with her (Bat for Lashes). She said the name, but it was unintelligible. Turns out it is "pepper + pistol" - currently there is an "[X]" there. Since the page is now protected, could you please make that change for me? --David Shankbone 21:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * SVTCobra got it. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Email
Brian, my email is millosh@gmail.com. I'll be online again at Monday. (I am not in Belgrade now.) --millosh (talk (sr:)) 13:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Belgian poster for EWW
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Template_poster2v2_belga.png

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(again) Comment's namespace on es
Well, as I like to do what is asked, I will inform you that the comments's namespace transition on 'es' has finished (we've got the namespace and commentary pages have been moved respectively)... All we need now is a good script for tabs... Regards, Jurock (reply) 16:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest I'd have to ask around about where the scripts for this are. I suggest asking User:Matt. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:WNIQ
This looks really poorly in IE as used in Wikinews interviews Peter "Shamino" Tan from Singapore about overclocking. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, will ask Bawolff for suggestions on tweaking it. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi Brian. I know that you have done much of the work on the Archive Conventions. I started a discussion on the talk page that I would like to get your input on. Cheers, --Jcart1534 19:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

First Israeli Journal
My first journal entry is up and ready for editing/publishing. I have limited ability to be on the Internet here. They are running us ragged. Israel Journal: The Holy Land has an image problem. --David Shankbone 17:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are these for Wikinews or for the blog? --SVTCobra 18:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the answer was that it was for Wikinews. People don't seem to understand what a critical departure this represents. I guess I can now write the story about how I met the mayor of White Plains at the supermarket, or are we going to have notability wars? --SVTCobra 13:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to make a drama out of this do it elsewhere than my talk page. Constructive is bolded in the note at the top of the article and I totally fail to see how this comment here is in any way, shape, or form constructive. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for striking that bit, I thought it was uncalled for. Yes, this is a "grand experiment" for want of a better description and criticism may be merited. I already commented on the article talk that we may need guidelines and rules to cover this sort of stuff. I think David's first piece is well written and very readable. Personally based on how organisations like the BBC give certain reporters the leeway to do first-person pieces, I believe this can work, but requires a degree of professionalism from the journalist in question. I raised this on the Communications Committee's private mailing list to highlight this and garner feedback straight from the horse's mouth on how we may be violating policy. As I said, the only criticism was the segue into the COO issue. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how this falls under the scope of ComCom, don't they handle external press? Well, the fact that David spoke to Haaretz is their domain, but the rest, well, whatever. In my opinion this is a dangerous experiment undertaken without concensus ... in the end Wikinews uniqueness is all tied to npov, something the beeb may strive for, but never have.--SVT'Cobra 15:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it falls under the scope of something ComCom should know about and be consulted on. If, technically, we were to "religiously" enforce NPOV we wouldn't have any interviews, this could perhaps be viewed as David "interviewing himself" after each day's exposure to the various media and other influences his hosts want him to cover. I think his first article does a good job of highlighting that and introducing a series of pieces.
 * I'd say give this time to develop and perhaps give some thought to the introductory disclaimer for the articles. David isn't going to be talking to ordinary people in the street and he can - as already shown - see where his hosts want to direct his reporting. He's going to be eating a lot of high-class "rubber chicken" to get what material he does so I'd like to see people being a little forgiving of the first-person narrative. It may seem odd on Wikinews but we don't have an explicit WN:OWN policy to parallel w:WP:OWN, and it'd break down for non-group interviews.
 * I'm expecting David to put up another piece this evening - time permitting. This time round I'll send to foundation-l as well as ComCom. I assume you are subscribed to the former and can comment there. I think this - from a longer-term view - does need a wider consultation and may need fairly exacting guidelines put in place to prevent people writing "What I did in my Summer Holidays", but I'd hope you wouldn't disagree with my belief that being invited, expenses paid, to Israel in his capacity as a journalist is something we should cover. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I am not subscribed to any mailing lists, I guess I should go ahead and do that since that's where real decisions are being made. --SVTCobra 18:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd actually disagree with that, decisions aren't really made on mailing lists, they're just - in most cases - another talking shop. They do offer the opportunity to be more direct, or blunt, but it is extremely rare for any suggestion or advice on a mailing list to trump what happens on-wiki. Instead those who have subscribed can call on the "wisdom of the crowds" outside the Wikinews community, or whatever other project is in the spotlight. The benefit of being on these lists is you know more about what is going on around the project you are interested in - and you can put in your whatevercents worth of opinion. The drawback is you'll get the same for every project you have zero interest in, but if you want to be taken seriously in this area you need to be prepared to look at other projects and try and help them move forward. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I already signed up for foundation-l. That was a bit tounge-in-cheek, about the decisions. Sorry if that didn't come through. --SVTCobra 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright
You posted the image below under the GFDL even though it is copyrighted. I would like to remind you to check copyright before posting on commons.

--User:Anonymous101 (I would prefer it if you replied via the email link) 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also tagged the image with an html comment to the effect that I wasn't 100% sure then dropped it in the right category. This hardly merited the drama made out of it. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

TV-Browser news
hi brian and thx for your nice welcoming :). I hope you can help me alittlebit, because normally I am on de.wikinews and I am not all familiar with the rulez and traditions in here (first time editor;)). so, I hope my "bad" english is good enough so that other German speakers can just dosomequick spell checking and then the article can be used and published. I do my best to post good news :). greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig 23:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thai elections lead by Pro-Thaksin party according to exit poll
Thanks for posting more sources and thanks for posting the sources on a talk page when I have inserted the. --User:Anonymous101 (I would prefer it if you replied via the email link) 10:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thai Election
Just to let you know I have no problem with you taking over any of the articles I write. This is a wiki after all --User:Anonymous101 12:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

PVJ59
Hi, closed the de-fA for PVJ59 as successful, but were the privileges removed? I would update the list and remove the cat from the user page if they have been, but I can't tell if it was done. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I can confirm the privileges have been removed per http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AListusers&username=PVJ59&group=&limit=1. I've updated WN:A and the user page accordingly. Adambro 23:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, I was unaware of that user list tool, but why does it only return one result, no matter what kind of search one performs on it? --SVTCobra 00:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure on the why one result, I would have checked with the user edit thing on the toolserver which lists privs before giving the contributions breakdown. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary Blocking Policy
Hi there, just to let you know that there is a discussion on the en.Wiktionary Beer parlour following the recent thread on foundation-l. Conrad.Irwin 23:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: SineBot
Sure, but that's simply a block link. If you already have a template here (like on wp) then it's just a matter of adding it to its user page. I'm having trouble finding it, though, as it's not in Category:Wikinews bots. -- slakr \ talk / 20:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

hiding again behind bureaucracy?
You saw with your own eyes that the Scientology article you just archived is an bad piece of German propaganda. Which can be easily improved with available resources, and within minutes. You ignoring this tells me that you are not interested in NPOV news. Misou 21:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not interested in the opinions of a single-issue Scientology shill. You have no more interest in news that conforms to NPOV than the Pope has in canonising Ian Paisley. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny! Made my day, thanks! Misou 23:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Disclosure
 * Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS

4) Editors who work in subject areas where a perception may arise that they have duties or allegiances that could prevent them from writing neutrally and objectively are encouraged to disclose the nature and extent of any such duties or allegiances.

Passed 11 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)"

"Responsibility of organizations

6) Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization's IP address and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization have a presumptive conflict of interest. Regardless of these editors' specific relationship to that organization or function within it, the organization itself bears a responsibility for appropriate use of its servers and equipment. If an organization fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may address persistent violations of fundamental site policies through blocks or bans.

Passed 10 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)" --Brian McNeil / talk 09:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Very interesting stuff. Can you provide links to where those two quotes come from?  Wilhelm 12:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
 * The two quotes are from the ArbCom ruling on the COFS case I linked to above. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for an answer. You are going somewhat off the mark, man, this is fanatic. I bet my friend "Wilhelm" is holding your hand by now. Misou 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See my talk page for an answer. You are going somewhat off the mark, man, this is fanatic. I bet my friend "Wilhelm" is holding your hand by now. Misou 20:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice new infobox!
Scientology

Feel like adding it to the other articles in Category:Scientology? Wilhelm 12:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
 * It wouldn't be appropriate to add it to archived articles, although a case could be made for any which don't have quotes/pics/other decorations. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, there are plenty of archived articles at Category:Scientology that do not have quotes/pics/other decorations. Could you add it to those?  Wilhelm 14:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
 * I have added the IB to all the undecorated articles in the Category:Scientology DPL, I don't think it would be appropriate to go back beyond that. You can post a editprotected on others if you want the opinion of another admin on this issue. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine, thanks. Wilhelm 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

checkuser-l
Newsflash, I still don't have access, let me in!

See here.

FYI, neither does User:Brian, see. I can provide a valid email for his subscription - brian DOT anderton AT wikinewsie DOT org. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Misou
Brian, I have unblocked Misou’s block; to reblock, indef was steep, and really, that cannot be justified via current policy imo. However, have made a 2 week block. If anyone wants to undo me, they may. Other than the fact that we know there's an organized effort to whitewash CofS activities across the web and the world, what Wikinews policies has *this* user broken? Well, pretty minor stuff if we weren't sure he was acting on behalf of the organization. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Details of the initial block were passed on to the English Wikipedia ArbCom. It is my opinion that this user will never be a productive contributor; it will always be "Scientology isn't as bad as you think", and we'll never see contributions on other articles. Where the user in question is not being an out-an-out liar they're trying to make a case that there is some form of conspiracy. They have resorted to non-specific legal threats and challenged CU results knowing full well that I can't reveal details of these.
 * CheckUser revealed the following details:


 * 1) Edits from two Church of Scientology addresses based in California.
 * 2) Edits from a hotel in Germany (a) at the time we had a negative story about CoS in Germany and (b) To "neutralise" said article.
 * I've now seen that this user is emailing everyone he thinks he can get to turn against me, and that he is threatening to have material in 3rd party publications highlighting his case. This is typical Scientology tactics and I will forward to Mike Godwin for advice should such be brought to my attention.
 * As far as I am concerned the lies and other actions subsequent to my block of the user indicate he will now engage in a personal jihad to have my privileges removed, I do not think it was wise to reduce the block, but will not oppose the reduction. For future breach of policy - such as editing a weeks old article to remove negative aspects about the "church" should be met with a reinstatement of the full-on block.
 * I have formally requested that the developers extend the retention period of CheckUser data for this Wiki to six months as a result of this incident. For the user to claim they are not the same "Misou" as was listed in a WP ArbCom case is stretching credibility to breaking point. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * retained in userspace --Brian McNeil / talk 11:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving oddity
Hello Brian! SVTCobra and I came upon an interesting situation while archiving and I would like to get your opinion on it if you don't mind? This older article didn't have any sources listed. I fashioned a disclaimer to put at the top, but for that situation should we go back and find some sources? For this particular article it probably wouldn't be difficult since it is based on the UN's WHO. But I am not sure if doing so is appropriate or practical at this point. Cheers, --Jcart1534 11:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Offhand I'd say look for a WHO report that is on the publication date or earlier and work it into the disclaimer. If we ever get caught up to the current 7 day limit this will be much less of a problem. I'm hoping you and SVTCobra have seen why I quit on this one. I'd pull up the day template, open every article in a new tab, check history - diffs if needed - and a few other bits and pieces that are my rough ramblings on WN:ARCHIVE, and User:Brianmc/Definitive article template. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. The archiving backlog is a bit overwhelming, but we see the importance of it. It would be nice if all we had were the 7-day-old ones to keep up with. Blood Red Sandman is trying to get active admins to archive 10 articles per day to help us get caught up. I don't know if that will catch on or not. For newer articles, May through October 2007 is pretty much done. I wonder if we should just use a bot to the older ones and leave them as is, or continue the manual work with editing/formatting etc...? I have to admit I am running out of steam for archiving and might have to break from it for a while - focus on writing. --Jcart1534 14:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Brain fart! Why don't we create archive pending review, an associated category and zap all the old stuff with that using a bot? I'd love to see us get more people involved in archiving and not see it as such an insurmountable task... take on a week, and on the Sunday write the opening couple of questions for the weekend quiz. Don't know if you follow wikinews-l, but I'm trying to see where we can adopt more encouraging options for people who might not be bold enough to start an article but will copyedit and such. With the new bot over on WP that might take off and spread. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm with you on that. Anything that could take care of the old ones would be a big help. I actually don't mind archiving. I find it relaxing, but I think there are just too many old ones to do. As we aim for a more formal editorial approval system (with an eye on Google news) the archival process will be an integral part of that. I did sign up for wikinews-l about a week ago or so. I like your idea of trying to encourage more Wikipedians to migrate. With a higher body count here, the routine maintenance tasks could be diluted out over more editors. Cheers, --Jcart1534 00:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

from WilliamStafford
What are we talking about? I think the next U.S. President will be a Republican. WilliamStafford 00:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)WilliamStafford

btw: I have an interview...
An interview I requested last weekend has finally come through, but not until next week. I'll have a chance to speak with Roger McNamee. I probably won't have a chance to write an article about it, though (busy non-wiki week.) If you or any wikinewsies would like to put together a list of questions, I'll be happy to ask them and give you the notes/answers. -  Amgine | sw 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC) (testing the annoying anti-sinebot siggy)

Page coding problem
Hi, is there a place to report a page coding problem like this at Portal:Sports? RichardF 16:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any obvious problems there, but our techie admins follow WN:AAA. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I use a dial-up/hiccup connection. I must have just "lost" something on the fly. >;-o) Sorry. ;-) RichardF 17:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Projectnext
Can you please delete the above? -- Spiderpig0001 09:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving
Question: How long is the rule of them from story being published til the article is archived/protected? Wilhelm 09:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC). For a story first published on a certain day, can relevant news/sources be added to the article that crop up after the published date noted at the top of the article - or should the article instead be archived/protected in its current format to reflect the news/sources available at time of publication - and then newer notable stuff could go in a new article? Wilhelm 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Nevermind, I found Archive conventions. Wilhelm 09:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
 * The stories I've written from scratch so far have tended to be relatively, shall we say actively developing pieces, as you can see. Could I perhaps ask you to archive or not to archive a couple on a case by case basis, if the need arises?  Wilhelm 12:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
 * In response, please see w:User:Wikinews_Importer_Bot - RichardF is listing the pages that use the auto-updates from Wikinews over there. As far as some sort of invite to work on stuff at Wikinews, you'd have to ask  about that one, though it sounds like a good idea.  Wilhelm 12:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC).
 * Quick archiving question
 * That's what I thought, thanks. Wilhelm 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

Category:Science and technology
Just curious, any particular reason why Category:Science and technology is in Category:Science and technology? :-) RichardF 03:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WN:FAC
Do you think either of the 2 recent Cruise articles have a shot at WN:FA status ? Wilhelm 12:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC).

RSS
If you mean the one about audio Wikinews which I run, I could easily access it. --User:Anonymous101 Talk 10:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the latest information I have got on the Audio Wikinews News Brief RSS feed - It is more detailed than any information I gave you yesterday, most of it is probably useless but I'll give it to you anyway. I can't give you much more info after this as I don't have access to much more info and  -

Hope this helps --User:Anonymous101 Talk 11:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yesterday it got 6 new subscibers for the feed
 * This feed started on Friday when it got 2 subscribers
 * In the last 17 and a half hours 25 people have tried to access the feed
 * This feed has been viewed in the USA, Romania, Belgium and the UK.
 * Both Firefox and Internet Explorer users have visited the site
 * A podcast subscibing application has been used to view the site
 * One person has chosen to automatically recieve email updates every time the feed is updated
 * Someone has subscribed via Google Reader

Reply
Thanks. By the way, you can go ahead and full-protect all the articles listed at my userpage now. It's way past the date of publication on them all, and I don't think they should be changed anymore. Seems like you and I both agree new developments should go into a new article, if enough sources/info exists. Wilhelm 10:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous
A new user,, had initially created the article which needed a bit of work. It was initially "published", but I removed that, slapped it back to development, reworked it, and now I think it's "ready". So, think it's ready to be "published" (again) ? Wilhelm 09:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC) Brian, please see WN:AAA. Just soes you know what you are dealing with. --JustaHulk 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about now? Wilhelm 10:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the quotes I already have in the article from "cultxpt". I happen to know that this individual is a genuine critic, and not a OSA Agent.  And the date of his latest post is recent enough to use with the article.  But I would not altogether mind if the article gets pushed to January 24, so long as it gets published.  Like I said, I did not start the article, but there certainly are enough sources.  Wilhelm 10:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Check it out - I added some more info/quotes critical of the "Anonymous" group's actions, from a press release of Operation Clambake. Thinks that's a bit more balance now, enough for "publish" ?  Wilhelm 10:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thank you. Wilhelm 14:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops
Sorry I didn't move my comments like you asked, but I think now others have posted essentially the same things like you asked, so seems pointless now. Nyarlathotep 13:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stable versions
Hello Brianmc, I hope you can excuse my *very* late answer to wikt:de:User_talk:Melancholie, but wasn't active at all there, unfortunately. I am sorry, but my stable version implementation is "just" a proof of concept, mainly written with JavaScript. It works perfectly if you have enabled JavaScript, but if not there is only a note down in the footer. I just wanted to show how easy it is to do something like that (Done within a couple of hours! Ok, plus a couple of hours for "stress" testing ;-). Unfortunately, the "official" stable version feature still isn't there, yet! What a shame! Honestly I do not recommend you my JavaScript version, as it is based on a not yet transformed MediaWiki message (footer). But the developers will eventually restrict that feature (to wiki syntax and for cache reasons), I'm afraid! But what you want to be implemented for Wikinews is possible. But it would be more effort for you! PageA would be a stable/protected one for IPs, PageB would be the editable one (a sysop e.g. would declare an article as stable (some kind of move, done automatically; but would be shown in RC). But if the "official" stable version feature (with db tags) should come the next months??? the work to be done has been wasted!?

If the whole Wikinews community is interested in *not* waiting any longer and in being *first*, we could do it! It would also base upon JavaScript a bit (only editors), by the way! --- Best regards, Melancholie 18:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a look on the fully functional mockup (rewritten > maybe you will experience some cache effects > CSS/JavaScript still stuck in cache, could take hours until working properly)! Only tested with Firefox, yet. What do you think about it? --- Best regards, Melancholie 06:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should log in, as CSS, JS and sitenotice are cached like hell there. --- Greetings, Melancholie 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Request
I know you are not a 'crat yet, but you may be before any other crat responds to this. I have requested a user name change, at Changing username. Wilhelm 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Accreditation
Sadly, we have no active admins there (although we are in the process of voting for a couple of new ones). But I can get the other active users there to comment, if that's ok. --Boricu æ ddie  19:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oversight
I had been thinking of requesting oversight, but wasn't sure, so thanks for that :). As far as I can see the history is clean. Regards (from Singapore) Sean Heron 10:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Anonymous" plans to protest Church of Scientology on February 10
Can you please comment on the talk page re 's major changes to the article waaaaay post the publish date? My tendency is to leave the article as is, as it was on date of publish, save for any very very minor copyediting or grammatical errors. Cirt 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't loads of external links (that aren't to Wikipedia or a sister project) to be avoided within the actual article text? Cirt 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology: '"Anonymous' will be stopped"
You may wish to have a look at recent alterations to the intro text by. Cirt 14:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at the talk comments and respond there before jumping into the fray. I would hate to think that you are deliberately misusing and misrepresenting your sources. Thanks. --JustaHulk 14:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't think we have noticed you.

<3 Anonymous 87.106.188.238 01:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC).

Big No-no
Big No-no noted. Thanks.131.137.245.200 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature
Okay, unsure what I'm doing wrong with my Signature as I cannot get the "talk" portion to link. Can you paste yours from your nickname field so I can see what the hell I am doing wrong? Thanks -- Drew / Talk 05:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Duh, now it works. -- Drew / Talk 05:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Editorials
Hello. You asked to be included on the discussion about Wikinews Editorials. I have begun such discussion here: Please feel free to comment. --David Shankbone - (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for welcoming me :) Diligent Terrier - (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Main page redesign
replied there. –Doldrums(talk) 11:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

About asking questions.....
I had to wait next debate until PTS Taiwan announced the official date. Brock contact... 16:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

PR stuff
Thanks very much for the suggestion about WikiBlue. Unfortunately it looks like she's not very active, and hasn't included her email address in her user preferences...I left her a note at WP, but things might be moving along too quickly to wait for her input. Anyway, here's hoping she checks her account soon! Thanks for the suggestion! -Peteforsyth - (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think WikiBlue is taking a break between ending her time at the WMF and starting here. It's worth sending her an e-mail, as this is probably one of the big areas where she is going to help contribute.  I think there may be a lapse before she started getting into the rhythm of her contributions.  --David Shankbone - (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Kill the volvos
Does User:Bawolff/sandbox/leads kill the volvo's parking lot?
 * Yes. :D --Brian McNeil / talk 09:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Credential verification
Hello there Brianmc: My accreditation request (a few weeks ago, now archived) passed, but I'm not yet listed on WN:CV. Would you be so kind as to add my entry? I only ask because I am about to undertake interviews that will need verification, and so it would be most helpful to simply be able to point my candidate to the page to check. Also, I was wondering if you might be able to help me on another count -- I am unsure how one goes about requesting a press badge, and I would like to do so; could you please advise me how to go about doing this? I'm really grateful for your help. Take care, --NicholasTurnbull - (talk) 04:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added you onto WN:CV. For a press pass contact MessedRocker and see if he is still doing them for us. You'll need to give him a photo - preferably a passport-style one - and an address to send the laminated pass to. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for adding me, Brian. I wonder if you might be kind enough to correct my first name in the section header, which reads "Nichoas" instead of "Nicholas"? Thanks a lot for your help. I'll send MessedRocker an e-mail. Cheers, --NicholasTurnbull - (talk) 19:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikileaks story
I've added the EFF press release I got this morning to the talk of your article. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Anonymous101 Talk 09:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've emailed the EFF lawyer and Erik Josefsson who StevenFruitsmaak and I met to see if I can get us a unique quote on this. Ideally something saying the bank shot themselves in the foot getting the site taken down and this reported on by - among others - the BBC. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the ACLU (who supported WIkileaks) for their opinion on the lifting of the court injunction. --Anonymous101 Talk 09:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Slam/bam archiving
I brought it up at WN:AAA also, but since you wrote WN:ARCHIVE, I thought I'd post it here, too. I have noticed that some archiving has been undertaken, but seems to be done without any attention to WN:ARCHIVE. The pages are just being protected and tagged archive without doing any cleanup. See this article for an example Memorial service takes place for Heath Ledger. It contains malformatted and unsorted sources as well as bad grammar. I think that you agree that the point of not having a bot do this is to fix these things. --SVTCobra 00:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Bulletin
 Anonymous101 (Talk) 21:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Accreditation Request
Brian,

Thanks for the support for my accreditation. It's been over seven days (nearly nine) since I put in the application, and so far I've recieved no unsupportive votes. If you could archive it, that would be a big help. Thanks. --WNewsReporter - (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Fed Conflict of Interest Bailing Out Banks As a Violation of Sherman Act
RE:   HEDGE FUND OPERATIONS

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1998 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Banking and Financial Services, Washington, DC.

http://commdocs.house.gov/commit.../ hba51526_0.HTM

From text: Let me just conclude by saying that the terms of the rescue package engendered by the Fed also raise troubling questions of financial concentration and antitrust. As a group working together, the new owners can have a greater impact on markets than in competition with one another. In this regard, it should be understood that the Fed's unprecedented extension of the too-big-to-fail doctrine to a hedge fund does not insulate the fund and its new owners from the constraints of the Sherman and Clayton acts.

The bailout may involve a tendency toward concentration that the Justice Department has an obligation to review —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.217.8 (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OTRS
Need your OTRS skills...for some images...you'll see...sue me :-) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I avoid the permissions queue because it is such a pain in the ass to deal with. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok then I will just redelete the images...cannot get help from anyone else on OTRS... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If a permission has been sent to OTRS then note that on the talk. It'll get processed eventually, or try #wikimedia-otrs --Brian McNeil / talk 09:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue with adambro anymore. I have had it and I am sick of following the rules and the requests of a fair use rational and still having my work deleted which is bull. I have had it. I already sent them to WMF OTRS and they didn't help because no one was a regular user of WN...so guess Adambro wins again. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Impostor
Thanks for your help on that, Brian.--Mantanmoreland - (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome templates
Just a FYI, generally people who've registered an account and not yet edited don't get given the welcome template. This avoids the problem of putting up a nice message to someone who then goes on to be a vandal. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. (We do give nice messages to vandals anyway though - "thanks for experimenting with wikinews..." --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 15:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

White Cat and Japanese Wikinews
Hi, while I replied you on ja:WN:AN, it is largely a repeat what I said on Requests for comments/-jkb-. One problem of this user is she or he has tried to avoid use our public discussion page but get a personal favor from the individual admins (which was complained also by the Wikisource communities). I prefer not to repeat same things again and again, so your comment will be appreciated much better on the latter, which now seems to gather voices from the whole Wikimedia community. Thanks. --Aphaia - (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead Article 4
I was trying to edit Lead 4, but when I click on 'Edit Lead' it takes me to the edit page for Lead 3. As the interview up now has been there since Monday, is there a reason it is unable to be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WNewsReporter (talk • contribs) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it has been fixed now. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights too anthropocentric
You might want to read the Pilingual Primer first. --Fasten - (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikimania
Many people have raised the issue of safety of attendees of this event because of the suggested risk of terrorism. However, in my case I think I should be more concerned about certain Wikinews contributors who may be present who have in comments about my edits made reference to devices of torture. Presumably physical harm towards me would be okay if we have a poll on Wikinews and consensus emerges in support.

Let's not be daft Brian, consensus is great but it can't always be the primary factor in deciding what it is we do. As a WMF project we have certain rules to follow, and whilst we can express our opinions of these in the hope of them being changed, we cannot pick and choose which we want to obey where they are still in place. I'm sure if you asked the British public whether to abolish all taxes that you'd find consensus in favour but it simply isn't going to happen because these things aren't dreamt up to irritate people, they have good reasoning.

The resolution has been known about for a good while and our images which don't comply should have been deleted nearly a year ago. It should hardly come as a shock that eventually someone would decide that the time has come to act. Adambro - (talk) 23:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm serious about inflicting any physical harm on anyone, well... That's just silly. I was very annoyed to see how this had been handled. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't think you're serious but I'm sure you can manage to express your feelings without making such daft comments. Adambro - (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As I am sure you can also pass comment on remarks without implying you take them seriously. I have already commented in the ongoing discussion that my opening remarks were perhaps inappropriate, I also consider hounding me on my talk page over this issue is inappropriate. The action taken was without due consultation, the filed deletion request failed to include a list of impacted images or articles - again inappropriate. I have one simple piece of advice. Take your Commons Admin hat off when you log into a Wikinews project and work with the community instead of against it. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, Adambro was not attempting to work against the community. He was attempting to support the community by following the guideline set out in a policy that said all Wikimedia projects must follow it. This has nothing to do with who's a commons admin and who isn't, it is simple a matter of differing opinions. In addition I would like to point out that the Deletion Request had no link with it as the images were deleted before the closure of the deletion request. In addition the DR did link to a list of the affected images (although that list has ow virtually disappeared due to deletion of images). --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 14:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It has already been pointed out that WN:DR is one of the less well trafficked sections of the site, with - what I consider - the good management of the site, it has become less important to follow this. I have the closed DR in front of me right now, and I see nothing which lists the impacted images, so you're wrong there. There's not even a link to a category that previously listed the images, and this was inappropriately closed after a week which - if I recall correctly - should only be the case for articles in the main namespace. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I closed it because they had all been deleted so there was no point in continuing with it. --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 15:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is - to a large extent - more concerning that all the images were deleted without due process than the fact that you closed the DR. As I have said to Adambro in a number of locations, please keep this within the discussion on the Water Cooler. My talk page is not an appropriate location for this discussion and it seems to be an effort to cast me as a sole dissenter because I was the one who spoke up about this. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Statlers2.jpg
Just a quick note about this image. I've discussed it with DF on a number of occasions and more recently with Cary on IRC and whilst I can't recall the exact comments that were made, there remains some issue with this image which might cause problems with moving to Commons. Adambro - (talk) 09:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, on this one if DragonFire1024 can establish when the hotel was demolished, and that is prior to the cut-off point for PD, then I think it should be fine to move to Commons. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I understood that it was not simply about when a photograph was taken but actually about when it was first published, something which we don't seem able to establish in this case. Adambro - (talk) 09:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Uwe Flade
Thanks for catching that, I think I was away with the fairies when I wrote that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)