User talk:Pathoschild

m:User talk:Pathoschild

template:breaking
Just wanted to say thankyou for fixing the html. Bawolff ☺☻ 05:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) —Pathoschild 14:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

 * Merry Christmas or winter holidays to you as well. —Pathoschild 23:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

News briefs:January 4, 2007 2
Hey I thank you for your edit on the Newbrief script! The scripts main purpose is to link to articles summerised and provided a reading for listers who may not understand my Australian-American accent. As your edit came sometime after the recording, I reverted the summary to mine, as that is what I spoke. I kept your corrected story title. This being a wiki, it is perfectly acceptable to edit before we start recording, however it is impolite to change the script afterwards. Thanks, and I hope to see more of your edits here on Wikinews! terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro 03:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello terinjokes. Sorry about that, I didn't know it had been recorded. :)


 * Shouldn't News briefs be merged with Audio Wikinews/News Briefs? I've only just noticed the Audio Wikinews project, so it wouldn't surprise me if I'm missing the reason they're separate. —Pathoschild 08:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Goings-on Selection
Welcome to the first edition of this fortnightly Community Newsletter! If you have comments, please voice them. If you no longer wish to receive this newsletter, you can unsubscribe. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. —Pathoschild 19:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for renaming that user :)  Thunderhead  ►  20:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :) —Pathoschild 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Verify your candidate summary
Hello Jason Safoutin. There is a summary of your 2007 board elections candidate platform and answers at s:Wikisource:News/2007-07-01. Because of the great deal of text to read through for all candidates, it is possible that there are errors or omissions in your summary. Please read it and respond at m:user talk:Pathoschild or by email with any corrections or suggestions. If you'd prefer to edit the page yourself, remember that the summaries should be as neutral as possible. Thanks. —Pathoschild 16:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good...But should reiterate more on my stance on the image resolution. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Could you explain your stance on the image resolution? If I understand correctly, it is "Allow fair use, although free content is preferable." If you can summarize it more accurately, please do so— I unfortunately do not have time right now to research very deeply. :) —Pathoschild 16:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This basically sums it up: Let me just clarify: Not all projects are drastically or in some cases slightly changed by the resolution. It would seem that the resolution favors a few projects over others, (new addition ->) and the resolution did not take into effect it would have of some projects. It should be conformed to fit the needs of each project, it does not. The definition of free was written by a board member, which is writing "free" as he sees it, and is basically his POV of free. (Good summary?) ;) DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A little long. :) How about "Allow fair use, and change the licensing policy to fit each project's needs"? Could you specify how it should be changed? —Pathoschild 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well we are a news site. So it should be changed to take that into consideration for example. And there is not such thing as 100% free images 100% of the time. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

YouTube user gets instant fame for video defending Britney Spears
Why did you remove a huge amount of content? It's useful background info - now the articles a crap little summary. In cases where the entire thing is trivia, trivia and otherwise useless stuff is important. Matt | userpage|contribs 03:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Matt. The story previously contained much unprofessional content (like numerous quoted immature insults) as well as journalistic errors (like the assumption that his fame will last two weeks). It repeatedly used subjective or weasel words such as "many people claiming", "large amounts of media attention", and "major promotion". It twice cited a Google News search result, which is not permanent and will gradually empty as the event falls out of current media attention. It listed minor awards rather than summarizing or explaining them, and made unsubstantiated claims such as that users who achieve brief Internet fame routinely criticize FOX News. After improving these and other problems, we are left with the much more concise and professional story we now have. —Pathoschild 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not a professional news site. -Edbrown05 08:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a news site run by experts, but it is one that attempts to conform to the standards of such news sites. We are attempting to create a reputable news source, not a tabloid or editorial magazine. —Pathoschild 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The google news search results were supposed to be in the external links - my mistake. The awards ARE important. The unsubstantiated claims were after reading other stories - thats OR. I don't think a 6-line story is very professional, and I would definately want the awards back in. Matt | userpage|contribs 20:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Google News is not a permanent resource. You can test this by searching it for mention of an older significant news story like Evgeny Adamov's 2006 extradition to Russia; you will find precisely zero results. Having a link to Google News in the external links section, as you can see, would be useless.


 * News story should give the readers the significant facts of the story, regardless of the length required to do so. Trivia should not be included simply because it extends the length of the article, which is a bad thing; readers do not want to spend as much time as possible reading up on it. When writing a story, we should strive to be as concise and precise as possible. If we include mention of the awards, it should be summarised in prose form rather than simply listed with repetition. —Pathoschild 00:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The entire article is trivia - its about a YouTube celebrity no-one will remember in a year or two. In these sorts of articles, a large proportion of the readers are going to want lots of trivia and in-depth information. Matt | userpage|contribs 10:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but it looks like we're not likely to reach any agreement. Try bringing it up on the talk page or a community discussion page, and see what other established editors think. —Pathoschild 05:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This editor thinks that you did a butcher job on this article. Links, links mostly disappear in relevance and may have historical value (I'm feeling smelly for even writing that). Take your links and shove them. This is about news. -Edbrown05 06:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it another way. Beating the shit out of an article for links you don't understand is no way to treat an article. -Edbrown05 07:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you interested in the facts? Then why did you remove them? -Edbrown05 07:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your attitude here and elsewhere (particularly your vow to "try to fight") is not helpful. Rather than revert-warring with administrators or insulting me, you should rationally consider my and other users' positions and offer your own. Such collaboration has a chance of convincing others, while negative emotional appeal does not.


 * What you may call it a "butcher job" or "beating the shit out of an article", I consider a significant cleanup. I have presented numerous explanations above to support this position; you have provided none to support yours. Broken links have zero historical value, and I'm pretty sure that that I do understand a hyperlink to Google News. I did not 'remove the facts'; I summarized the important facts of the story while removing trivial or counterproductive details like long, inline quotes such as "Omg, you made me cry. :( *points at comments* Those people need to shut up! *hugs you* I feel for you." —Pathoschild 11:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove the quotes, but the trivia is important. Matt | userpage|contribs 01:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at it from the project-wide standpoint of without any invitation suddenly Oversight appears on the scene here. Suddenly a new proposal Wikinews Foundation appears. Suddenly an attitude of disregard for clearly honest reporting in the form of this YouTube story gets trampled. This kind of creepiness will not earn friends, I assure you. Letting the process of neutrality evolve will. Let that happen. A professional new service wasn't born in a decade, so don't short circuit it (or clip personality, this is not an encyclopedia, and personality does count for something among reporters). -Edbrown05 08:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "Oversight" you're referring to, and I have nothing to do with the proposed Wikinews Foundation (which is only a tool to get accreditation anyway). The "process of neutrality" does not consist of individual editors owning articles; quite the opposite, it consists of editors with differing opinions working together such that the sum of their biases neutralize the result. In this case, your bias for triviality was neutralized by several other users' biases for professionalism and formal writing.


 * If you think that is not the case, propose re-adding details on the talk page. Revert warring with administrators, as you did when I made my changes, is not very productive. —Pathoschild 16:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to come here and rip the guts out of any article you chose. I thought you might simply read it. Editorial control over it is another matter. -Edbrown05 09:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are a control freak, hmmm. -Edbrown05 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WHAT DID YOU CONTROL? Any unbiased reporting, or eliminating reporting itself... because you couldn't find the so-called sources. Go back to, what? you unoriginal self. -10:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Edbrown05 Request for ArbCom
I've proposed a request for arbcom relating to the recent situation with Ed. If you take issue with being listed as an involved party, please remove your name from that list. Otherwise, I suppose you'll be expected to make a brief statement on that page. irid t i [mailto:ironiridis@gmail.com e] 07:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for notifying me; I'll watch that page. —Pathoschild 08:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request
Blood Red Sandman has blocked me as an unauthorized global bot, probably because of my occasional Synchbot service. I've added en-Wikinews to the script's skip list; all you had to do was ask! :)

(Tangentially, Synchbot is a semi-automated process, but it isn't a global bot since its edits should not be hidden from overview.) —Pathoschild 00:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note to passing people, He's a steward. Sidonuke (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lulz, Pathoschild is a helpful steward who runs that script for the good of the community. Blood, unblock him. --Diego Grez return fire 01:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've lifted the block; I seriously question the "wisdom" of running any bot-type process on an account with such elevated privileges. Regardless, the onus in such cases is to ensure you comply with policy on all projects, or accept such blocks as a risk. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you explain your concern with the bot? It may be something I can address. The bot makes an identical edit to one user's pages across multiple wikis; it requires elevated privileges to edit users' script files at their request. Since 2008, the bot has completed 159 requests by 85 unique users, with only one error which was fixed with a second run. —Pathoschild 12:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the privileges are required then so be it. With my background in systems analysis, I'd always say an automated process should be trivially distinguishable from a human/interactive one. But, with over 20 years in IT, I'm old-school. I work from a principle of, computers can do what a human does thousands of times a second - including making an error a million times. My first boss in IT would, now, be in his late 70s, a former IBM consultant when I worked with him. A lot of the extreme risk-adverse philosophy he had rubbed off on me. Then again, for the majority of his life you were talking a cost of tens of dollars per line of code, thousands per failed test run. I share his intense dislike for 'seat of the pants' coding and solutions, likely why I did so well getting my British Computer Society qualifications. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I strongly suspect the bot would receive permission to operate if it were requested. The local policy is as-is so that the community can, if you like, 'inspect' the bot first. I would obviously prefer it if a separate account were created and given the elevated permissions as well, but I daresay in the circumstances an exception is possible. The WN global bot policy is deliberately very restrictive in which ones can operate without local permission; only the simplest bots are allowed, and only if proven. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

SynchBot
Hello!

Nobody actually bothered to get back to you, and I was looking at bot requests this AM. The consensus (despite the above misunderstanding) is to go ahead and run the bot. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) — Pathoschild 12:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know how things can be around here, which is usually "Chaotic Fun". Half our contributors - myself included - wouldn't readily recognise the difference between a steward and a croissant. We're constantly beaten with some 'bizarre' AGF stick for being "suspicious journalists", but it goes with the territory.
 * Any issues with the bot, or "suspicious journalists", give me a shout. ;) --Brian McNeil / talk 19:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again. Feel free to post here if there are any questions or issues about the bot. :) — Pathoschild 23:23, 02 June 2013 (UTC)

New RfA - acagastya - LINK
Hi Pathoschild

Please consider commenting.

I pinged you previously, but there was no response. This may be the last notification before the vote is closed.

Also, merry Christmas!

--Gryllida (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)