User talk:Dendodge

Welcome to my user talk page. Use the "Add comment" button above or the textbox below to begin a new thread, or add your comment to an existing (related) section by clicking the [edit] link in its header. If you leave a message here, I will respond here unless you request otherwise. If you do not respond, I will leave talkback on your talk page.

Special:Log/block
Please don't do that. — μchip08 00:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dendodge!
Please please please PLEASE review the 'slavery' article ASAP, it's about to become stale, and the topic is kinda interesting IMO, it purely consists of direct translation of quotes, etc. It might be easy to review using Google Translater Thank you! :| アンパロ Io ti odio! 19:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:N
Are you nutz? How do you expect someone non-tech-literate to use n?

Sure, it'll format per SG - maybe - but, the less markup newbies have to learn, the better. Just look at some of the disasters from Prof. Blackall's final year students. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying people have to use it. I just think it might be useful when dealing with certain large numbers - of course, it's purely voluntary. Besides 1000 is hardly complex. But, yeah, it's mainly for us oldies, if we want to, to help us to differentiate between different kinds of billion. It's far less complex than using the tags raw. DEN  DODGE  17:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll bet it breaks MakeLead. :P --Brian McNeil / talk 18:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I mainly made the template out of boredom. If Bawolff makes it work with MakeLead, that would be nice, if not it doesn't really matter. It was just something to do, and I think it might have some use some day. DEN  DODGE  18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would recommend finding a better name for it. It seems neither primordial enough, nor obvious enough in its function, for a one-letter name.  Imho.


 * Cf. km to mi and mi to km. --Pi zero (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I just figured it would save typing to give it a one letter name, if it's to be used (eventually) for most of the numbers in our articles. However, I do see your point - feel free to rename it to whatever you like. (I suggest N ON WHEELS!) DEN  DODGE  18:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol.
 * I used the lower-volume n on wheels. I did relativize the documentation, though, so from here on out it should take moves in stride :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's going to need a proper name before it ever gets used, though :P DEN  DODGE  19:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking of writing number to words that converts an integer to verbal form. Using that, number could be made to work when missing its second parameter; actually, I'm not sure the second parameter wouldn't disappear in a puff of logic. --Pi zero (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you can make that work, that would be very cool. Alternatively, the two could be merged - there's a lot of overlap there. DEN  DODGE  21:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, although I could make it work, I shouldn't. Brianmc said it earlier: we shouldn't create templates that people will want to use in article text unless MakeLead can be made to not break on them.  MakeLead was taught to handle w by just replacing the template call with its last parameter &mdash; but that doesn't always work with number, and would be even worse if we soup up number using number to words.


 * Oh well. --Pi zero (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't people just, I don't know, check the text of the lead before clicking "save"? Personally, I'm not a big fan of using the start of the article as the lead, anyway - where are people's imaginations? DEN  DODGE  22:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

using js
I see you are using UserMessages gadget, I enabled it but don't see any new interface (using Vector theme). Is there a guide or place you can refer me to, other than its source? --Gryllida 05:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I just tried it in Vector, and it doesn't work there for me either.  I use Monobook, and when I look at a user talk page there's a whole extra menu at the bottom of the left column, below "toolbox", called "notify".  But not in Vector  --Pi zero (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I get it in the toolbox in Modern. If I recall correctly, in Vector it adds an additional drop-down next to the tabs at the top of the page. There should be two arrows. DEN  DODGE  16:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Thank you for welcoming me. That was very kind of you. -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Section Title
oh dear water cooler. Anyone have a way to WRITE as in pen and paper to both Willie Nelson and BobDylan?? Have message. Could make great story.
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. We don't have addresses for either of those people, if that's what you're asking - you would be better off approaching their agents. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  15:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

100,000
Uh, how can i sleep tonight knowing about having made such a mistake! But look that!: So, i maybe sleep well... ^^ --Itu (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * with Comma: 3.690 hits
 * with out space: 3.230 hits
 * I think some news organisations allow the adding of commas and stuff to comply with their own style guides, but I tend towards complete accuracy even about the little things like that. It's hardly a big thing, but it's best to be as true to the original as possible :) DEN  DODGE  George Watson  22:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: today i see 10.900 with comma, 3.550 with space, 9.890 close. --Itu (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology
Your broadcast reporting notes were good. Weirdly, I have this distant memory of having known that earlier, and somehow managed to lose track of it. Maybe I was distracted by worrying about the bad atmosphere created by Mattisse's comments... which would be pretty ironic, since I ended up making it worse. Anyway, whatever the circumstances, I screwed up, and I apologize. --Pi zero (talk) 03:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Apology to you
I deeply apologize for my comment of "piss poor" and sorry that one comment can cause such a commotion on wikinews. It was not meant a personal attack, but as I have had my competencies derided and been called "stupid" etc. on wikinews, I know it feels very bad and I am so very sorry.

As far as Norwegian speakers to over see machine translations, there are plenty on the other sister sites who are willing to oversee a translation. On wikipeida all translations, even those not machine done, must be verified by another speaker. Also, if you go to a Norwegian sister site, there is always someone willing to verify the translation. I have used this method myself.

I am sorry for all the anguished I caused you. I hope my apology helps you understand I regret my actions. I know I would have felt better if I had received an apology for the abusive comments made about me.

Best wishes, Mattisse (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's OK, I didn't really take offence to anyone in particular, and probably overreacted to the whole thing. You do raise some valid points. However, the only phrases taken from the source were "Nazi" and "hate ideology", one of which is the same in both languages, and the other of which is both very similar and short enough that a machine translation is not unreliable. Had I been taking an entire sentence, I would, of course, have consulted a native speaker.
 * Anyway, I accept your apology, and did not mean to make you feel responsible for anything. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  13:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your graciousness. I felt horrible because of the "the bad atmosphere created by Mattisse's comments" above. I guess I cracked wikinews! I wish others could be so generous. Regards, Mattisse (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize as well. It seems I was mistaken about what constitutes original reporting.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Statistics
"of whom 220 (0.08%) are active. 60 users are administrators, making up 0.02% of the total user base. There are more reviewers, as these 150 users make up 0.05% of the total number of registered."

I'm not good with math, but doesn't that mean that for every 3.7 active editors there is 1 admin (probably more like for every 2 active editors as some of those admin also presumably are an "active" editor themselves? And for every 1.5 active editors there is 1 reviewer (or more, since some number of reviewers also actively edit? Are my numbers way off? Mattisse (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's pretty much right. There's probably a lot of overlap, but that's a decent high-end estimate. What it says about Wikinews is obviously up to interpretation. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  16:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it says that there are about one to three of us who write numerous articles and who aren't an admin or a reviewer. No wonder we get no respect, eh?  Mattisse (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'd probably pass a request for the reviewer right if you ran. Your time here hasn't exactly been free of controversy, and sometimes you come across the wrong way, but neither of those things will necessarily prevent you from passing. If you want it, that is. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  19:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It's my understanding there are lots of inactive users with the admin and/or reviewer bit. --Pi zero (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and that is apparently Ok here. They can run for Arbcom though. It makes a nice fit since Arbocm apparently doesn't do anything. (I can't find a single arbcom case. I guess they are kept hidden.)


 * {respnse to Dendodge, as I was caught in an edit conflict) I wouldn't dare run. The fact that I used "piss poor" means that people are "worrying about the bad atmosphere created by Mattisse's comments" means otherwise. I think wikinews has lost its one editor that actually produces articles that isn't an admin or reviewer. I really have to reevaluate whether contributing to this site is worth the ugliness. It seems expressing honesty and trying to improve the standards here mark an editor as a trouble maker. I notice most of the editors that have left have tried to improve wikinews. Of course, most reviewers don't review, just as most admins don't seem to write articles. But they are great candidates for Arbcom! I feel like a fool for having hope for so long. Excuse my rant, it's just that there is no way to be honest on this site. And I don't mean hurting others, but any critcism means someone will take it to mean "the bad atmosphere created by Mattisse's comments". Again I apologize for the "piss poor" comment. But since it created such a bad atmosphere on the site, I am not encouraged. Or was it that I had questions about the (apparently nonexistent) OR policy? Another bad on my part. To hell I go!  Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I overreacted, and contributed to the bad atmosphere as much as - or more than - you did. I don't write or review very often because, between my education and my personal life, I just don't have time. It is something I regret, and over the next month or so I hope to be significantly more active (thanks to the summer). Everyone has their own little excuses, but my point is that there aren't very many of us, and the ones there are aren't very active, so losing another editor isn't what the project needs. And while I may not agree with the way you say it, I do actually agree with you on some things, and certainly agree that the project needs to change dramatically if it is to grow to reach its full potential. Don't let yourself be discouraged. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  19:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My kind of article isn't wanted here. I was told right off the bat that any article that had more than two sources would have a hard time getting reviewed. I'm not interested in going for the headline grabbers. I would rather pull together many sources into a coheret article. That's not what is wanted here, although I am appreciative for the reader comments to the contrary. No one seems to have time here, and I certainly have other things to do than contribute here when my contributions are completely unappreciated and, rather, I am put down for "complicating" things. I would be a fool to continue putting the effort into writing articles when that is not what is wanted. I am not a good fit here. I am a journalist. I want to write substance for greater understanding, pulling together multiple sources, and I have been told that is not wanted here. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Excess bolding
Thank you for your feedback. I learn everyday and welcome feedback; no body is perfect. When one feels passionate about an issue flow of thoughts need to be shared. Point noted. Thanks
 * The words should stand for themselves. Excess bolding gives undue weight to one person's comments, and looks ugly to boot. It's not something terrible, but it's best to avoid it so people's eyes don't hurt. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  09:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for reviewing David Cameron responds to rioting, promises changes on policing‎! —Tom Morris (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! That kind of article is one of the reasons we need some kind of inline citation system... DEN  DODGE  George Watson  14:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On articles with many sources, I think a note from the author on the talk page, explaining broadly which information comes from where, could often be immensely helpful for review. Perhaps we should put that suggestion somewhere, for authors to see; any thoughts on where to put it?  --Pi zero (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay, jumping onto Den's talkpage. I'm thinking WN:CS is a good place to mention it. Hints, tips and tricks may be worth creating to pile misc. advice into. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Japan to use reusable energy
Apparently we were both working on renaming the article at the same time, but renamed it slightly differently, with the result that the original title was a double redirect without either of us being warned of such; it took me some moments to figure out what had happened.

Are you going to review the article? I was preparing to try to convince myself I'd have time to... --Pi zero (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm just copyediting the review queue. If they haven't been reviewed later, I'll give a couple of them a shot, but that will be in at least a couple of hours, and I won't be able to do them all. So go do it now :P DEN  DODGE  George Watson  12:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the tip, I am sending the email to scoop@wikinewsie.org. --Teemeah (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Cambodia shuts down leading newspapers
I did it again, didn't I &mdash; reviewed an article that someone else was copyediting. Sorry about that. --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's fine. I was just about to start the review, and you've saved me a job. I'll move on to the next one in the review queue now. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  13:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

HYS question templates
These go pretty much wherever you like.

It's just the standard no-question one goes at the bottom. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I deleted the standard one, and I don't think I'm supposed to, but it looked ugly and seemed redundant. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  15:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be only one. Just that if that one is no-question, it should go at the bottom.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Cookie!!!
Having one right this very second! Thanks!!! Bddpaux (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and by the way....I've requested accreditation as a Wikinews reporter.....would you mind looking at my application over at Accrd. Requests? I'd be highly thankful.Bddpaux (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Crazy Italians
I'm pretty dumbstruck by the itWP thing too. your remarks in IRC were highlighted to me, so maybe get a chance to discuss them sometime.

I think the Foundation's hands are tied; this actually shows that NPOV may be a principle, but without surrendering their "no editorial liability", they can't enforce it on a determined, and united, community. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, without NPOV, I might as well be a Daily Fail hack. The NPOV policy is what made us different, and the WMF evidently no longer values it. I wonder if they would take the same position if we were to redirect every page here to an editorial on the evils of the Tory government...
 * That isn't to say I won't return - I hope to, preferably soon, but the WMF will have to either admit that it was in error or otherwise prove that it still values NPOV first. I'll still hang around in IRC, though - I have friends there, and I still wish the project all the best - so you can contact me just as easily as before. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  16:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll note there's nothing new in Wikinews holding strong values that wmf wouldn't back us on &mdash; that's one of the reasons we have trouble getting respect in journalistic circles, that our parent organization has no problem with Wikipedia, which, whatever its merits, simply does not possess the qualities to be taken seriously in those circles.


 * But I take your action to be in part a form of public protest against wmf; perhaps I was reading too much into your actions, but I thought that might be why you requested privs removal at meta rather than here. I likely owe you an apology for this (should have asked your permission first), but, figuring the gesture ought to be given publicity, to maximize whatever good it might do, I took the liberty of dropping a mention of your resignation on the foundation blog.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That was part of it, but mainly I didn't want to cause too much disruption here - Wikinews itself has nothing to do with my decision, and I want to try and contain discussion here to my userpage. It was perfectly fine of you to mention me on the Foundation blog, though. I know Wikinews still upholds NPOV itself, but when our parent organisation has forsaken that policy, I wouldn't feel right putting my name to it. I have no problem with them having an official position on the issue, but blocking all useful content on a wiki for political reasons just isn't right, to me. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  17:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh! Good thinking; thanks! :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm reminded of something else ... Fundraising banners. The extent to which we were leant on not to touch them was, shall we say, 'impressive'.
 * In any case, it should be the case that getting mop 'n' bucket (even the extra large one for 'crats with the lever-operated troll squisher) is on the understanding you will uphold NPOV as the core, non-negotiable, Foundation philosophy. The foundation has always claimed to operate "above politics", or at least to keep outside the political sphere. Any credibility should one single future claim be made to such ethical superiority will be dismissed and viewed as fiction.
 * Sue and Jimmy must've been watching some Marx Brothers films: "These are my principles. If you don't like them, well... I have others." --Brian McNeil / talk 18:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Look, the NPOV policy is about making sure statements within articles are neutral. But it is foolish for Wikipedia to not protest against legislation which would directly harm Wikipedia The Italian law would make it much more difficult to operate the Italian Wikipedia It would be one thing if Wikipedia began protesting against polar bears or begged Iran to free hikers But in this case I think it's justified WhisperToMe (talk) 14:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Within articles. Every article on the site was redirected to a decidedly non-neutral page, so - in effect - the content of those articles was non-neutral. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck how noble the cause is, Wikipedia should be neutral. To invoke Godwin's Law, Adolf Hitler does not begin with "Adolf Hitler was a corrupt leader responsible for the murder of six million innocent Jews"; it begins by saying that he was a German politician, the leader of the Nazi party, and the chancellor of Germany. People are left to make up their own minds based on the neutrally-worded content of the article... when they ask for it.
 * The Italian Wikipedia should, of course, have had an article on the Wiretap Act, but it should have given the facts - and sourced opinions - and left the reader to make up their own mind about it. It should also have let them have access to this article when they asked for it. If I want to know about ponies, I probably won't be too happy about being redirected to a page about how nasty Hitler is, no matter how much I agree.
 * Wikipedia articles should be neutral. The Italian Wikipedia effectively vandalised itself in a major way - it replaced all useful content with political opinion. Telling people who ask for information about ponies what to think about something entirely unrelated is not Wikipedia's mission; nor is it neutral, and it should not occur on a Wikimedia site. It's just wrong, and I will never agree with it.
 * Yes, I understand that the Wiretap Act is an awful thing. I understand that Italian Wikipedians want to do something. I just think they did it in the wrong way, and that the Foundation was wrong to condone this. I would not have opposed Wikimedia IT taking a stance. I would not even have particularly minded the WMF taking a stance on the bill. I wouldn't even have been overly bothered by a small, dismissable, sitenotice. But replacing all useful content on a wiki with political opinions - no matter how valid they may be - is pretty much vandalism, certainly not neutral, and not right by any means, in my opinion. And it is an opinion I stand by. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  18:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you read this?
Did you read this? 

From October 4 to October 6, 2011 Following a decision Adopted by Volunteers of the Italian Wikipedia community, all of the site's articles Were hidden and the website was blocked by ITS administrators, as a protest Against paragraph 29 of the DDL interception (wiretapping Bill ) [8] Which Was Being debated at the time in the Chamber of Deputies of the Italian parliament. [9] The Proposed Bill Would Empower Themselves to anyone who Believes Have Been offended by the content of a web site, even if the content is true, to enforce publication of a reply in the Same Place and with equal prominence of the related content, Within 48 hours Any and without prior evaluation of the claim by a judge. If after 48 hours hadn't publied Any reply yet, the one who asked for the reply to appeal in May Eventually civil court ASSESS Which Had to request the Disputed Evaluating the content. The sanction Would Be Between 9.500 and 12.000 at the end of euros. Should the bill pass, it is thought to inflict severe Likely limitations on the "horizontal" and freedom of access to common editing That Is Wikimedia projects. This was the first time That HAD to Wikipedia blanked at the ITS content to protest. [10] [11​​] [12] The Wikimedia Foundation Officially supported the decision of the Italian Wikipedia to statement released by the Same Day. [9] As of 5 the October 2011 manifesto, which effectively Replaced the Italian Wikipedia, Had Been viewed approximately 8 million times. [13] on October 6,  201, the website content was restored, with a banner across the top of page Each Explaining the reason for the protest. [14] --Italo Stefano Moro (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Eww, Google Translate!) Yes, I read it. What about it? DEN  DODGE  George Watson  12:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * A "political stunt", if you ask me. It is, quite simply, Campaigning journalism. That very first word clearly indicates it was a breach of neutrality. The Foundation would have been better-off completely blocking access to Wikipedia from the entire country "to protect Italian contributors". Instead, they've stepped into politics. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your "protest" departure
Hola!

I assume you still check in here periodically, or at least have a talk modification email alert in place. And, I am hoping that you've had time to reflect on your choice to protest against the WMF doing nothing in the face of the itWP community using their language project for political protest.

There's a certain irony to what happened there. If the WMF had stepped in and reverted the changes to direct users to a page detailing the itWP community's ire at the proposed new law, they would've been riding roughshod over consensus, and actively imposing an editorial viewpoint (albeit a 'neutral' viewpoint).

That latter point is rather important, and here on enWN we've seen more than our fair share of pressure on this project's editorial stance that originated with the WMF. However, there is a vast difference between "pressure" and "enforced positioning". On that basis, I would ask you to review what happened on itWP with some hindsight; to look it as an "extreme" use of MediaWiki's sitenotice feature, and contrast the extremity of that action with the very real legal threat that anyone contributing to any WMF project from within Italy faces with the proposed legislation.

I don't want to say you're wrong in moving to TOG, but I will say it is hypocritical to continue contributing to any Wikipedia project if you feel so strongly about what happened on itWP. I do think moving to TOG as a place to contribute news is "cutting your nose off to spite your face". The Open Globe may well never get as trusted a Google News listing as Wikinews has; it will take years, if not decades, before a simple search for "Open Globe" pulls the site up in the first page of results (as-opposed to medical results for ocular trauma).

So, might you reconsider? Or are you perfectly happy that readers and contributors are tracked with Google adverts? That the reasons for the project's founding were far from noble - more petty than principled? That review is more rubber-stamp than rigorous?

They've made a pretty skin for MediaWiki, though! --Brian McNeil / talk 16:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect OG was safer pre-GNews listing. They now have the worrysome combination of low-factchecking with potentially high exposure. The potential implications of a libel case are concerning enough I'd be wary which articles I was involved in. (I must remember to bring this up with the OG communicty at some point...) Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll go through this bit by bit, because there ar various things raised that really ought to be dealt with separately: "There's a certain irony to what happened there. If the WMF had stepped in and reverted the changes to direct users to a page detailing the itWP community's ire at the proposed new law, they would've been riding roughshod over consensus, and actively imposing an editorial viewpoint (albeit a 'neutral' viewpoint)." That is true, and it is something that was raised at the time. In my opinion, the Foundation imposed an editorial viewpoint when it made NPOV a core pillar of their projects in the first place, and community consensus should not be able to override NPOV. If they want to push their opinions, they can go fork and get hosted somewhere else. "That latter point is rather important, and here on enWN we've seen more than our fair share of pressure on this project's editorial stance that originated with the WMF. However, there is a vast difference between 'pressure' and 'enforced positioning'. On that basis, I would ask you to review what happened on itWP with some hindsight; to look it as an 'extreme' use of MediaWiki's sitenotice feature, and contrast the extremity of that action with the very real legal threat that anyone contributing to any WMF project from within Italy faces with the proposed legislation." I agree that the proposed legislation was wrong, but comparing replacing every single article with diatribe to using a sitenotice is complete and utter nonsense. The itWP editors had every right to campaign against the law, but they did it in the wrong way and the WMF was wrong to back them. "I don't want to say you're wrong in moving to TOG, but I will say it is hypocritical to continue contributing to any Wikipedia project if you feel so strongly about what happened on itWP. I do think moving to TOG as a place to contribute news is 'cutting your nose off to spite your face'. The Open Globe may well never get as trusted a Google News listing as Wikinews has; it will take years, if not decades, before a simple search for 'Open Globe' pulls the site up in the first page of results (as-opposed to medical results for ocular trauma)." I haven't edited Wikipedia for a long time, since long before I retired. enWN is the only project I pay any attention to whatsoever now, but I don't contribute here except to reply to things on this page. OpenGlobe has a GNews listing, and it works well and is regularly updated; whether or not the project is trusted remains to be seen. I do agree with you that they picked a pretty crap name, but it's too late to do anything about that. "So, might you reconsider? Or are you perfectly happy that readers and contributors are tracked with Google adverts? That the reasons for the project's founding were far from noble - more petty than principled? That review is more rubber-stamp than rigorous?" What Google adverts? The ones you just made up? The project was founded because Wikinews was, and is, fundamentally flawed, and the "old guard" fails to see that. The review system is enough to weed out the crap, without making every story three days old by the time it is published. News should be new.

And, from BRS: "I suspect OG was safer pre-GNews listing. They now have the worrysome combination of low-factchecking with potentially high exposure. The potential implications of a libel case are concerning enough I'd be wary which articles I was involved in. (I must remember to bring this up with the OG communicty at some point...)" OpenGlobe has more factchecking and less exposure than Wikipedia, yet you do not raise any such concerns there. The system works well enough for Google News to trust us, and a similar system works well enough for one of the top ten websites. What makes you think OG is suddenly going to get sued?

I've tried to address what I can, but I'm somewhat distracted at the moment so I've probably given terrible responses. Sorry! DEN DODGE  George Watson  18:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "...yet you do not raise any such concerns there..." I believe I've raised similar concerns at points, though I accept that they likely were not in public fora. Nevertheless, WP can afford to have individual editors gone after as there as so many of them; and, cases will be selected more carefuly since going after a Wikipedian is bigger news. "What makes you think OG is suddenly going to get sued?" Um... Nothing. I'm confused as to where I said it would be; OG is not a legal entity as far as I am aware, which makes it a troublesome target. Individual editors are more viable. '[S]uddenly' is also problematic, I'd be surprised indeed if it happened within the next year or two (but not surprised enough I would not be being cautious myself). It's a question of considered risk; being an individual is likely enough to save you from action in a lot of cases where traditional media would be hammered.
 * To comment in Brian's direction, although I have seen discussions about generating ad revenue from OG, I do not presently see ads on the site. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The responses weren't as crap as you might think, Dendodge.
 * BRS's remark about TOG having a Google listing was news to me. The review difference, at the moment, is a "weed out the crap" versus "weed out crap, libel and copyright violation"; the fact that "Open Globe" is a registered mark and actively trading company (www.openglobe.co.uk) is seriously, seriously problematic. I've no intent whatsoever to attempt to sabotage TOG, but it would not be difficult to do so by posting obvious copyright violation from a less well-travelled source.And, advertising was present when I first looked at TOG; that it's gone suggests someone has put their hand in their pocket, much as I did for wikinewsie.org, or the administrative costs outweighed the revenue generation.
 * I suspect, in the long-term, you'll see that TOG will either suffer from the same ("I've zero interest in subject &lt;foo&gt; so won't review") or something fatally wrong will be published.
 * Lastly, you mis-characterise people like myself ("old guard"); I am well-aware there are problems with Wikinews' review system; but, the relaxation of that in-place on TOG is too much. You were here for Saqib/Saki, and his nonsense, but not for Neutralizer. There's no dispute the current enWN review process is too strict. What is lacking is consensus on the degree of relaxation that's appropriate.
 * If Wikinews' overly-strict review leaves us as only genuinely appropriate for academic work such as the UoW student submissions experiments, so be it. I don't have the confidence that TOG could survive re-learning some of the most painful lessons Wikinews has gone through that make it a credible source, a source as-credible as many in the mainstream – if not moreso. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OG can take some comfort on the copyright front: recent attempts to turn copyvio into major business in the US have met with massive difficulties in the court system. I suspect there will be another few comapnies come along to have a bash at it, but current models have failed and I would imagine it will be quite a few years before groups like OG's contributors are seriously at-risk on the copyright front. If they were unlucky they could theoretically be caught up in the next round, but the chances are pretty slim. All this buys time in abundance to try out varying solutions on that front... Unless someone strikes it unlucky. How unlucky you'd have to be, I'm not sure. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This all actually makes rather interesting reading, but I'll offer a small meta-comment. One of the mistakes we've made on Wikinews for the years I've been here has been to spend vast effort squabbling about how onerous review is, and what to do about it.  TOG has done one good thing, by basically removing that distraction from here.  In long periods when I was doing about two thirds of the reviews here, and creaking under the weight of the review process, among the things I've concluded is that onerous review is not our biggest, or even our second biggest, problem; it isn't even fundamentally broken, just something that could use improvement (some nice tools to help the reviewer do what's needed would be, well, nice).  We've just spent way too much time obsessing over it, and that's partly because we were being driven to do so by some of the folks who provided major impetus for the fork.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see my heads up at ArbCom talk page
Please see Wikinews_talk:Arbitration_Committee. Just wanted to keep you in the loop, -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

privs
'''Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.'''
 * Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use.


 * Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.



--Pi zero (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Status
Was just noticing the header on your user page &mdash; atm you're not an admin or arb. --Pi zero (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops. Yeah, I haven't updated that for a while... (and evidently forgot that I'm supposed to sign, too) den dodge 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, now you're a reviewer again. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?
We've created the Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. It would be a really great time for you, as a Wikinews accredited reporter, to do some original reporting and conduct interviews. People should be around to interview to prevent a backlog, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common.css/User:Dendodge
hi how would I get MediaWiki:Common.css/User:Dendodge this to work because when I tried it on Wikipedia works when I am loged in so I can only see the colour but when I am loged out it doesent show correctly my page is located at 86.168.53.10 (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The page on Wikinews is a subpage of MediaWiki:Common.css; being able to create it was one of the perks of being an admin here. I honestly don't know what Wikipedia's policy is on custom styles for user pages, but if they are allowed you'll need to ask an admin to create it for you. DEN  DODGE  George Watson  18:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * oh ok thanks 86.168.53.10 (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

privs
'''Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.'''
 * Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use.


 * Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.



--Pi zero (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)