User talk:Doldrums/Archive1

--Mrmiscellanious 00:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

User: Rcameronw has been blocked for requesting de-admin vote and alleged "trolling"
Just wanted to let people know that, following yesterday's discussion, user rcameronw has been blocked for 24 hours. It was decided that rcameronw's request for a de-admin vote constituted "site disruption". (see article talk page for more info:)

Re: minor edits
Doldrums, please be advised that as that is not policy, users have the choice whether or not to follow it or not. Edits that may start out as minor can turn into somewhat major, and once that box is checked, you can't bring it back. (And with the wiki as slow as it is lately, it's really hard to do that "mistake recovery" item discussed on the page). Furthermore, I do define items such as removing a copyvio'ed image, sending an article back to develop, and changing a previous vote on a page. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Public relations excercize (Iraq White House strategy)
Thank you for that excellent article. I enjoyed the read and always enjoy learning something new. Bush's Iraq 'Strategy' seen as public relations exercise -Edbrown05 00:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy proposal Re; Time limit for Administrators
hi,; hope you can support this I just put this on the watercooler policy section

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

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

Proposal;

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

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

SUPPORT;

OPPOSE;

COMMENTS;

Please do not edit war on a policy page.
The policy is *not* contested, the wording may be. Do not edit an established policy without gaining consensus. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"edit war"? "not contested"? i think u need to explain more and label less. Doldrums 08:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hi
I can't figure out whether your comment is criticizing me or complimenting me. Either way, I appreciate your feedback. ironiridis 17:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Again, I appreciate the feedback. ironiridis 17:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that. Well done. I was having a hard time locating sources for that article that weren't just angry liberal journalists. (Myself being eligible for that position, heh.) Thank you for addressing my concern. ironiridis 17:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked this by Cartman02au as well
and I explained myself, very briefly and probably not very well, on his talk page. User talk:Cartman02au I think. Since I wrote that there has been another wheel war, another policy insertion by JWales, one of the policy proposals failed to reach consensus in a strawpoll, and there has been another round of userbox deletions. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've responded on the talk page. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 05:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Moussaoui
Thanks for your work on the story. Seems you and I share similar interests in news topics :) Best regards! -Edbrown05 02:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn you!!!
Thanks for fixing my spelling mistake. :) Much appreciated. irid:t 13:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Brief review
I haven't fact-checked, but the writing of the article looks good. I broke up the lede to get a present tense verb in the first sentence, but an active present tense verb would be preferred; I'm too tired to come up with anything at the moment though. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 07:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Libby edits
It's in the article in the sources section, and for the India article, please use some common sense. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And I am asking you to review the articles again, and then looking at my objections to it. They should be fairly obvious.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Isles' msg
Thank you for your efforts to get the stories i have tried to contribute published. Your work is much appreciated. Obviously i am having some trouble integrating myself into the wikinews system.

I have this story that I feel is of prime importance to all of us here on earth, but I am having a good deal trouble finding sources for it other than the nuclear information project sited below. He has a great deal of sources listed but I can’t locate them on the web. Here is the story as I have developed it so far. Do you have any ideas?

regards Isles 16:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Preemptive Strike Policy Goes Nuclear

The joint chiefs of staff of the US military have been working on two doctrines to clarify their current position on the use of nuclear weapons. The first is called The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (http://www.nukestrat.com/us/jcs/jp3-12_05.htm) which states in the executive summary: "The use of nuclear weapons represents a significant escalation from conventional warfare and may be provoked by some action, event, or threat. However, like any military action, the decision to use nuclear weapons is driven by the political objective sought."... “Integrating conventional and nuclear attacks will ensure the most efficient use of force and provide US leaders with a broader range of strike options to address immediate contingencies… This integration will ensure optimal targeting, minimal collateral damage, and reduce the probability of escalation.” … “Although the United States may not know with confidence what threats a state, combinations of states, or nonstate actors pose to US interests, it is possible to anticipate the capabilities an adversary might use… These capabilities require maintaining a diverse mix of conventional forces capable of high-intensity, sustained, and coordinated actions across the range of military operations; employed in concert with survivable and secure nuclear forces” … “The immediate and prolonged effects of nuclear weapons including blast (overpressure, dynamic pressure, ground shock, and cratering), thermal radiation (fire and other material effects), and nuclear radiation (initial, residual, fallout, blackout, and electromagnetic pulse), impose physical and psychological challenges for combat forces and noncombatant populations alike. These effects also pose significant survivability requirements on military equipment, supporting civilian infrastructure resources, and host-nation/coalition assets. US forces must prepare to survive and perhaps operate in a nuclear/radiological environment.”

Note: After public exposure, the Pentagon has formally canceled the Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and three related documents. Go here for more information . The decision to cancel the documents simply removes controversial documents from the public domain and from the Pentagon's internal reading list. The White House and Pentagon guidance  that directs the use of nuclear weapons remains unchanged by the cancellation.

 The second major policy paper that the Joint Chiefs have been working and doing operational tests for, is called JCS Strategic Deterrence Joint Operating Concept (JOC), prepared by STRATCOM., or Space and Global Strike Plan. (http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/GSchron.htm ) A draft of this offensive strike plan published in February 2004, describes the role of nuclear weapons as follows:

“Nuclear weapons provide the President with the ultimate means to terminate conflict promptly on terms favorable to the United States. They cast a lengthy shadow over a rational adversary’s decision calculus when considering coercion, aggression, WMD employment, and escalatory courses of action. Nuclear weapons threaten destruction of an adversary’s most highly valued assets, including adversary WMD/E capabilities, critical industries, key resources, and means of political organization and control (including the adversary leadership itself). This includes destruction of targets otherwise invulnerable to conventional attack, e.g., hard and deeply buried facilities, “location uncertainty” targets, etc. Nuclear weapons reduce an adversary’s confidence in their ability to control wartime escalation.

These programs have undergone extensive testing and implementation http://www.nukestrat.com/us/stratcom/globalstrike.htm over the last few years with very little notice from the public or coverage by the media.

Thanks
Thank you for the advice and rapid response.I will work within the permiters you mentioned as best i am able to seperate my own motivations from this project. It is a diffacult line to walk because wikinews does ask for stories that interest me, which is a form of advocacy through point of view. On the other hand there are hundreds of places for people to editorialise on the web. That is why i stuck to qoutes from the documents themselves and cut the opinions that i had in the earlier version of this story. This is what I would call an ongoing newstory. Is there no place for that kind of news at wikinews? The pentagon has been working on this doctrine for at least five years and are continueing its developemnt and testing. But i do hear what you are saying and will look for the right event to connect with this larger story. thanks agian Isles 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my RfA
Heya Doldrums. Just wanted to drop you a note thanking you for your support of my RfA. Muchly appreciated. :) irid:t 22:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

About Greenpeace founder supports nuclear energy
I'd like to see the reason why he left Greenpeace listed; it may shed light onto why "his views changed". I'd also like to see a brief summary of the extreme dangers with nuclear energy, including a skim over what Chernobyl was all about. Otherwise, the article is very good. irid:t 15:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

hello and subst
Thankyou for welcoming people to wikinews. when you give the welcome msg could you please subst: it like so:

This way the mesg is copied to there page, so one they click the edit link, they don't edit the welcome mesg. Although that mesg is protected, its less confusing this way. It also reduces server load (by a very slight amount. so slight it proably doesn't matter). Thankyou. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.
Thanks for reminding me that "date" indicates date of publication,not date of occurence.I'm still a newbie so I might make a few errors but I'll try and minimise them over time.PVJ 18:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion
If what you said on the Ulead news is true then I will agree to let it be deleted. It seems I need to study more on en WikiNews. Thanks for your suggestions. --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 18:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm OK. Thanks for your encouragement. Regards. --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 18:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Olive branch
I'm extending an olive branch, after I have observed your edits for the past few days and have, for the first time, realized your good-faith edits and contributions to this wiki. I am sorry for any inconveniences you may have experienced with me in the past, and apologize for not realizing your importance to this wiki sooner. I hope you'll accept this as a token of a sincere apology, and I look forward to working with you in the future. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 23:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Admin code
You got me :D, I suppose I should get some sleep :) Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 11:37, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Spaces after punctuation.
Yeah sure I'll start putting spaces after punctaution marks from now on. Sorry about that :-). By the way someone created a very short article about the Sinai bombings - could you merge it with my article or redirect it to the latter or something? I'm not too sure what is to be done when there are two articles about the same thing but one of them is a stub. Thanks. PVJ 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, thanks for welcoming me into wikinews...and sorry if I posted my post in the wrong spot, cuz I'm new..lol

... == ==

That one was the same as WikipediA's, for the most part... 68.39.174.238 23:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

re: ur Brian New Zealand vote
Voting is evil... But, at least on BNZ's and MrM's, I thought I should say something. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Impersonation account
Thanks. See also here :)  Radio Kirk    talk to me   04:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for the category change and Wikification, on the article I’ve been working on. I forgot to do it, and was about to change it when I saw it had already been done for me :) MyName 17:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * no sweat! happy newsing! Doldrums 17:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

foreign language articles
My dutch is not very good, but the articles seem to reflect the sources accurately. I did not find any other European source for the aticles, I might try again to see if anything comes up tomorrow if I have time. Did not have time to work on the "freed suspects" article (although it is interesting). Thanks for asking though, I blieve that article collaboration should be improved here. --vonbergm 05:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Australian cabinet discounted potential security risks with nuclear energy
Your title is much better. Thanks :) - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Warning Templates
See:Template messages/User talk namespace Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Deleting for no sources.
Since there were no sources listed, and the writer of an article was a new user I assumed it was nonsense. In future I will list such articles on the appropriate page. Thank you for pointing out my mistake. PVJ  (Talk) 17:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome
Hi, and thanks for the quick welcome. --Elliskev 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hay
Wanna hear a joke? Wazzawazzawaz 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons
Hey, I know what little so far I've tried fails to address the idea of cartoons, but what do you think? Is there a place for it? -Edbrown05 04:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Convenience link -Edbrown05 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can understand chopping down a cartoon, what I can't understand is why it needs to be chopped down. -Edbrown05 04:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

!- I got a charge out of your comment, "dilute the npov requirement in policy". Of course I take that in context, and thanks for posting your thoughtful response. Hmmm... as a response to your post in its entirety, is an unsatisfactory something or other. -Edbrown05 06:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

image
Sure, But I need to know where the image actually is. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Should work now. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 17:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sources tag
One source just ain't enough! I want at least two. Preferrably three. However many it takes. — THIS IS M ESSED OCKER  (TALK) 17:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You idiot.
What I did was not Vandalism. It is one of the most important quotations and I think it suits you better than the one in your profile. For that matter, your whole profile is nonsense. I want to argue. Tell me where to.

Illegal
It is illegal to simulate a Sandbox area in your userpage and thereby trying to attract more users into you, especially newbies to WP. This can be used later to promote pov pushing and agenda chasing. Your position shall always be suspect at WP. If you want to come clean, please remove the area titled "Playpen" in your user page. Thanks 207.46.50.74 12:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * this is "WN"; if u're looking for WP, go here. Doldrums 12:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no much of a differnce between Engineering news and science and technology news. It is just becouse Engineering potal in wikipedia has a link.

No.

Thanks
Thanks for the Welcome message on my talk page. --GW Simulations 19:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello.
Think you are my old time pal. Wanted to say Hi. So HI.

Pandoo 12:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pandoo 17:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Condemnation
Why are you so afraid of the word "condemnation"? If you take a look around you'll see that the BBC, Reuters, Associated Press and CNN use "condemn"/"condemnation" in their reports. When BBC use the word, I see no reason why we shouldn't. --Jambalaya 13:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what BBC article you have read, but it says: "World powers have condemned North Korea for test-firing a series of missiles, including one thought capable of reaching the US." I won't bother changing the word again, but you shouldn't push the NPOV too far. And it would be polite of you if you responded to my correspondance. --Jambalaya 13:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

ken lay
I don't edit much over here, so sorry if I created a dupe in a careless way. I tried to search for existing articles before creating Ken Lay dies of heart attack. Anyway, I added what I had to the other article.--Birdmessenger 14:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Article title strawpoll
Please participate in the strawpoll for the final title of US soldier arrested for rape and four murders in Iraq. —     19:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I added an American flag to the article because the accused is an American. If you have any objections, express them on the talk-page. PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] (Talk) 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I renamed the article because 1)It is fast becoming old news and this title seems to be quite reasonable and 2)The earlier rename was put in place before the strawpoll ended and 3)The other alternative would be to change the title to "The title of this article is currently disputed". PVJ [[Image:Flag of India.svg|25px]] (Talk) 13:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Whatwoudia article?
I don't quite understand which article you're talking about. —     04:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks!
As a matter of fact, I had never come across it, but I've bookmarked it for future reference.--Birdmessenger 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright Vio on Red Sox Article
Hi. You placed the copyright vio tag on the Red Sox article that I wrote. I did not copy the article from the source. I did, however use some info from the article. Is that copyright vio? (Mikeb423)

Agni III
Yes, I recall that the initial reports termed it a success. I was not sure how WN shall report it. Hence I changed the title and updated the article with some info. However, if the community finds it better to have a separate update, please revert the article, and have the new information in a separate article. Thanks. Pandoo 18:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How to undo a move
To undo a move, you simply go to the page it's been moved to, hit the "rename" button, and rename it back to the old title. What you did was that you undid the automatic redirect, so now we have an edit history spread across two pages. I've been looking to see if there's anything we can do about it, but until then we can live with it. —     07:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Regular editors, if I can recall, can move over redirects. If you couldn't, then you should've asked at WN:ALERT. —     07:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)