User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Archive3

Podcast
The Audio Wikinews podcast hasn't been updated since August. What's going on?--Munchkinguy 02:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I have a Blogger account. I'd be happy to update the podcast. --Munchkinguy 02:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

My email address is '''Got it! Removed to avoid spambots -MrM''' --Munchkinguy 02:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attacks on article talk pages
I have submitted this for administrative action. MrM is continuing to try to create a public feud with personal attacks on article talk pages.[] Please try to get him to stop it. Neutralizer 10:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Neutralizer 10:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Please keep article comments on the article talk page
The article you refer to is not "my" article. There are other contributors. Please put the personal comments on my talk page and article comments on the article's talk page. Thank you in advance. Neutralizer 17:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This is a stupid question, but...
Do you know off hand if Google homepage is an online rss reader. I know its online and that it reads RSS feeds but thats not really its exact purpose(I think.) So i'm not sure if it would be classified as an online RSS reader. If it is classified as an online Rss feed reader then the new google article needs to be changed. Bawolff 02:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wanted to make sure before I changed Google launches online RSS reader Bawolff 02:37, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

policy questions
Hi there Mr. M - glad we got that nasty argument sorted out in the end. For the wider policy questions about sources, I'd very much appreciate your input here: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Policy_discussion:_What_should_be_acceptable_as_a_.22credible_source.22_for_Wikinews.3F

Rcameronw 07:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi
Just a note to say that I understand things have been difficult recently but I really think that it's worth sticking with this project and trying to hammer things out. I'm sorry to read of your decision and very much hope you reconsider, or at least think it over.

Rcameronw 22:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please don't quit. People should be free to edit Wikinews and if you back out, you're just giving them (whoever they are) satisfaction. --Munchkinguy 23:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Your withdrawal...
Please reconsider your withdrawal from Wikinews. You're a valuable editor and an excellent administrator. I understand your frustration with recent events -- I think, as someone said, the community has failed you (and itself) in many ways. I certainly think that your fellow administrators have failed you. It is unacceptable for your to become the primary target of malcontents in our community. Rejoin us and let's commit to reenforcing the sense of community, NPOV, and the wiki philosophy. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll believe it when I see it
MrMiscellanious threatened 2 months ago to quit after the founder of wikinews, Jimbo Wales, criticized him, as the user above well knows; and that had nothing at all to do with the reasons now being given for quitting.  so I can't take this resignation talk too seriously.

I have to wonder if this is not simply a way to rally support for more administrative controls; e.g.; of the site. After all, you could always change your mind and come back; and even use my words here as a reason not to leave; which is fine with me.

If this is true (resignation), the main beneficiaries will be newcomers to the project; in my opinion.Neutralizer 15:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully, MrMiscellanious will not choose to hold on to the administrative post
That would not be ethical,imo, to retain those powers while not participating in the project. Neutralizer 15:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe this person should have admin rights if he reverts edits like he did here, at 3:28pm on Oct 18th. http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Study_finds_marijuana_use_leads_to_brain_development_in_rats&action=history I removed an offtopic comment that was against wikinews policy, by ranting about the prohibition of marijuana, which has nothing to do with the article. Then I commented on something about the article, specifically how the title is misleading, and MrM reverted it.

Welcome back
Welcome back mate, nice to see you keeping the riff-raff in check. ;-) --Wolfrider 19:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you never indicated you would give up your admin powers; I'm glad we weren't put in the position where you quit wikinews and still held onto admin. powers. That would have been highly unethical,imo. Neutralizer 20:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me on WN:A
Thank you for supporting me on WN:A. I also wanted to mention your user page fits in really well with the cologne blue skin. Bawolff ☺☻]] 20:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

no blanking
I assume you are telling me about this because my edits were blanked; thank you. Neutralizer 13:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In regards to .
Out of curiosity what is template
 * Sorry for not signing my post. the reason I wondered is because wouldn't that be the same as typing Whatever. Bawolff ☺☻[[image:smile.png]] 21:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Category: Valerie Plame scandal
Hi! There are 7 protected stories that never got placed in the nearly forgotten category, until it was revived by JWSchmidt with a prepared story on the topic. On his talk page here, is a listing of the stories that users might find handy to look for additional information, if it could be put into the category. Can you please look into this? -Edbrown05 23:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you! -Edbrown05 23:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Won't happen again
Sorry about adding that link at the water cooler; I meant to add it on my talk page. Won't happen ahain. Neutralizer 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Neo-nazi rally
Do not unpublish an article that has been published for several days because of a single problem author. If you had read the talk page you would have known that Gatti was the original NPOV problem and to inform you, I resorted to placing an alert on the admin alerts page because he kept publishing an undeveloped story. Consensus on the article had been reached after alot of editing and fact checking by myself and others. Sending it back to develop was completely inappropriate, especially given the fact that you had absolutely no involvement in the article's construction. For future reference it is not enough to state things like "obviously not ready" and give absolutely no reason as to the problem with the article. --Wolfrider 02:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

French government minister harassed by US immigration
I don't quite understand why you tagged this page as "not newsworthy". This topic was discussed by several major news sources (Le Figaro is a major newspaper, for instance).

Perhaps you meant that it was "not neutral"; but this affair opposed the governments of the US and France, and both points of view were represented &mdash; they essentially agreed that it was a rather minor incident, but that the US customs officer did a professional mistake. So there's no "POV" problem.

Now, I think I remember discussing with you on IRC (but I may be mixing people up), and my impression is that your support of the current US administration prevents you from being neutral and objective. Please try to abstract away your political leanings when you tag pages on Wikinews.

Thanks Regards, Submarine 22:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a few notes: Personally, I think the event is newsworthy because it may be a sign of a wider phenomenon. Begag is the only French minister to have had such problems recently (and I don't think he's the one who travels the most). Coincidentally, he's of Algerian origin. The event may or may not be a sign of racism on the part of US customs officials; certainly, it's anecdotal. However, when you think about it, many news events are anecdotal in essence. Submarine 08:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * the event was reported in major newspapers, so it cannot be dismissed easily;
 * the official is question is discreet about the issue, so he's not "complaining";
 * the facts have been acknowledged by two governments.