User talk:Uncle G

Welcome
Uncle G, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! CGorman 20:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Budget
Good work! Dan100 (Talk) 13:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pope
NB: Im giving this message to the 10 or so people I suspect may be on Wikinews when the event occurs.

I've created a story announcing the Popes death - when the Vatican or BBC/Reuters announce he is actually dead please insert the date & time and publish - we will be the 1st news group to break this story (besides our source)! The story is located here User:CGorman/Sandbox. Whilst waiting please improve the story. → CGorman (Talk)  22:44, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews:Story preparation
Seeing how well preparations have gone for the Pope story, i've created Story preparation. Instead of users preparing stories on their own computers and saving them on their own hard drives, they can place them here to allow other writers to add to them before the event. This will help eliminate duel coverage of the same story - Teeks99 had spent some time yesterday evening writing a Pope story - but did'nt load it onto wikinews resulting in his version being made redundent. Hopefully by allowing users to collaborate on a story from an earlier date, our article quality will be dramatically improved. → CGorman (Talk)  15:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template
Thanks for setting up Template:Prepared story. → CGorman (Talk)  20:29, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate stories
Thanks for your comments in the duplicate stories discussion. I replied to your comments there.

It looks like you have been thinking about this issue. I just noticed a link up above to a Story preparation page. That looks like a constructive suggestion for unverified or embargoed stories, but I'm not sure if I would like to work on stories under a page with such a draconian warning label on it, because it appears to stigmatize or marginalize the stories underneath it.

Perhaps we need to have a more friendly area on the site where it would be prohibited for the Wikinews newsworthiness enforcers to place a Deletion request, to allow more of an opportunity to collaborate on stories starting from just a few sentences? &mdash; DV 01:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It doesn't stigmatize or marginalize the stories at all. It warns readers (who might accidentally reach the page) that if (say) they read an obituary there, the person hasn't actually died.  The Story preparation area is for ensuring that multiple editors don't duplicate effort when preparing stories ahead of the events that they describe.  Uncle G 11:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the purpose of Story preparation for stories which have not yet taken place. However, if we are collaborating on a story after an event has taken place, is the Story preparation page the appropriate location to host a link to the article while it is being written? &mdash; DV 19:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. If the event has already taken place, then the (appropriate) prepared story at Story preparation will have been published, and the story de-listed.  The whole idea of Story preparation is that the story be (as far as possible) already written.  If a story hasn't been written before the event, then Story preparation simply doesn't enter into the picture. Uncle G 09:28, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope's funeral
Will you be merging in that text? - Amgine 19:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I had already merged it in 10 minutes before you wrote that question. Uncle G 20:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do not remove that link.
There is no policy justification for doing so. Wait until it has been abandoned at least 6 hours. - Amgine 19:15, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You're confused. We don't cover the same story twice.  That's simple common sense.  Your idea that there's "no policy" for this is completely contradicted by the fact that we have mechanisms for ensuring that we don't cover the same story twice.  I strongly draw your attention to the message that appears above the edit box whenever you create an article. Please stop undermining these mechanisms simply because an anonymous user cannot follow instructions. Uncle G 19:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Simeon's changes
As you have probably noticed, Simeon is intent on competely re-writing almost all the Wikinews namespace articles. I object to this on a number of fronts: there's no consensus for such changes, the pages have existed as they were for a long time which I believe is a sign the community accepts them as they are; the existing pages have all been carefully written and constructed by several editors to be the best they can be; and Simeon's changes are to make them grossly longer and harder to read. And I must be honest - a couple of the pages were written by me. I obviously don't mind people altering them, but I do object to them being destroyed. Dan100 (Talk) 08:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Results of 2005 United Kingdom General Election
Excellent work, it look very professional. → CGorman (Talk)  09:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thought you might want to be made aware of a couple links on Wikipedia which we may want to use as source for news articles:
 * United Kingdom general election, 2005
 * Pre-election day events of the United Kingdom general election, 2005
 * Amgine 22:10, 1 May 2005
 * You haven't noticed, then, that there's already a link to the Wikinews prepared story from the talk page of the first. &#9786;  (My intent is for that to move from the talk page onto the article page itself.)  There's a whole lot of election results coverage on Wikipedia.  I've been writing some of it.  Have a look at w:Special:Contributions/Uncle G. Uncle G 02:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like an apology please.
You accused me of attributing the words "human trickery" to the pope when actually they were mine. You were wrong; the words were in the 7th. paragraph of the Pope's speech and I am still awaiting an apology. Paulrevere2005 23:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) still waiting Paulrevere2005 19:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Paul! Thats no way to act, you said that you would behave when your ban expired. Uncle G may have made a mistake but demanding an apology is not the way to react. Please learn some manners! → CGorman (Talk)  20:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * forget about the apology,Uncle G, I make mistakes too. I just feel a bit ganged up on right now, not your fault, best wishes, Paulrevere2005 23:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disputed article on the day page
Ungle G: I did not see a current dispute tag on the article when I added it... did I miss a dispute tag being removed inappropriately again? (I was in a bit of a hurry, trying to clean up the developing stories section, so I may have been too hasty.) - Amgine/talk 17:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * From the talk page discussion, and from the edits to the day page for the day following the one that you edited, I don't think that the ongoing dispute has been resolved. Uncle G 17:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will look again. Thanks for checking up on me! - Amgine/talk 17:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I wasn't checking up on you, per se. I was reading the Main Page.  &#9786; Uncle G 17:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Uncle G - the story is still disputed. However I couldn't think of a suitable tag for the objections - the lack of anything news worthy. Dan100 (Talk) 17:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the two of you... I'm building a template for this type of dispute. - Amgine/talk 17:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the best solution here would be a listing on Deletion requests. Not being newsworthy is really something you can fix - either a reportable event has happened, or, erm, it hasn't. However I'm mildly allergic to DR and the ensuing arguments, so I haven't listed it. And it might be kept of course, which would be a worring precedent.
 * PS Sorry to Uncle G for replying to Amgine here, but I hate scattering conversations across user talk pages.
 * PPS Why are we using bullet points?! ;) Dan100 (Talk) 18:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 *  I agree; I'm putting that into this template (the deletion request link).
 * Thanks to Uncle G for hosting this discussion - Amgine/talk 18:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't mind. I'm of the school that sticks to the one talk page, too. Uncle G 18:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope again
It's now on Deletion requests. Dan100 (Talk) 12:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit preoccupied at the moment. 200 election constituency articles yet to do within the next 4 days.  Uncle G 12:57, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

For your brilliant political articles/results!


Seriously, your work is wonderful, and is going to be so cool on Thursday! I plan to be up through as much of it as I can. Do you have a list of places which will be live webcasting audio/video of the election? And how can I help out then? - Amgine/talk 05:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My first wiki-award. &#9786;  I don't know about web-casts.  I plan to be following the coverage on cable from 00:00 UTC onwards.   See the talk page for the answer to your final question. Uncle G 10:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Want adminship?
You seem to be an around at the right time/right place kinda guy, fancy having admin rights for vandal control? I'll nominate you. Dan100 (Talk) 18:16, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My answer is the same here as at Wiktionary (where I discovered on Friday I am now an administrator) and at Wikipedia. My wants don't enter into it.  I haven't self-nominated, and don't intend to.  (What are important are whether you (plural) think that I can be trusted with the abilities to delete/undelete/protect/unprotect articles and block/unblock users; and whether giving me those tools will benefit the news service.  In terms of fighting vandalism, it probably will benefit the news service.)  To the actual question of whether I would accept a nomination by someone else my answer is "Yes.".  Uncle G 12:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Lol sorry I missed your reply. I'll list you. Dan100 (Talk) 12:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So, I was wondering...
Since you've done such brill work on the elections, articles, are a dedicated copyed/fact checker, and so on... May I nominate you for adminship? - Amgine/talk 01:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * My answer to that is, in fact, immediately above. See the last sentence. &#9786; Uncle G 11:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Croatian election results
I don't understand what you mean. I'm sorry for not getting it, but could you please explain? The user that wrote the article liked the idea. NGerda 04:07, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Uncle G, actually, I am not very sure what you mean either. Can you please explain? There is still at least several hours before we get all the results, so no rush :) --Dcabrilo 04:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure we are in sync: I am working out a layout in my Sandbox for once the election results are over. The idea was to permanently move contents of that sandbox (primeraly the table, everything else will be edited once the results are out) to the results article. --Dcabrilo 04:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * See Story preparation for how to prepare and publish election stories. And see Help:Redirect  for the mechanics of redirects and how they interact with page moving.  Transclusion is the wrong way to go about this.  And replacing a redirect with a transclusion, as happened at Results of 2005 Croatian local government elections, instead of just renaming the page, as I indicated you could do, is particularly wrong. Uncle G 14:05, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Just a question
Is Microsoft going to be an MS news portal? It should be, but do we have enough article traffic to keep it from looking like a cobweb?- Amgine/talk 01:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I just added the interwiki link and the picture. &#9786;  The DPL was Redge.  I only stumbled across Category:Microsoft by accident, when I used an intrawiki link instead of an interwiki one.  Also see your conversation with Hooloovoo at Category talk:Microsoft.  Uncle G 04:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

User page
Hi there. You're listed on Administrators with most users supporting your candidacy (as nominated by others). However, I agree with Eloquence's note that you should create a user page prior to being tagged in. Please do so if possible. -- IlyaHaykinson 22:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

- Ping! You live? - Amgine/talk 16:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandals hit wikinews.org
I don't know how to remove it on the main website Paulrevere2005 15:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your nice comments
Thank you for supporting me in my request for accreditation. If you ever need any help with an article, or anything else, do not hesitate to contact me on Wikinews IRC or by leaving a message on my talk page. NGerda 16:16, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ass Pus
Unfortunately, Bungphutz has been vandalizing all of Wikinews, and he got to your page. Please block him ASAP! NGerda 18:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I would if I could. I've just blocked and rolled back the changes made by the same vandal over at Wiktionary.  But I'm not an administrator here. Uncle G 18:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you have a user page with history!
Sort of a badge, when you get a personal from Wow. Congratulations! I don't know if anyone has given you one of these before, but... - Amgine/talk 18:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

New Workspace
The "duplicate tag" was put in for the sake of a proposed new workspace here: Proposed Workspace. please try it out. Kevin Baastalk 02:54, 2005 May 31 (UTC) I noticed you're preserving the structural integrity of the working model of the proposal. I appreciate that. The category names I'm not picky about, I just want the template names to be short so they're quick and easy to change. I named the categories as I did to reflect the template names, but that's not neccessary. I would think "urgent review" should go before "final review", but I don't know the details of the purpose/motivation of it. Perhaps you could leave a comment on the proposed workspace talk page about the improvements you've made. I want people to modify it, provided that the concept remains intact (a new concept deserves a new proposal) Thanks. Kevin Baastalk 06:41, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
 * No. The duplicate tag was put in because for some bizarre reason you couldn't see, and still seemingly cannot see even after I pointed it out at the Water Cooler and in edit summaries, that your  tag and category Category:Prepared exactly duplicated an existing tag and category.  Uncle G 05:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not blind, Uncle G. I am not using voice-software.  I can prove it: there is a picture with a puzzle piece on the side of this text. So get a grip and start assuming good faith. Kevin Baastalk 06:15, 2005 May 31 (UTC)
 * No-one has even mentioned the subject of bad faith except you. Uncle G 17:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan Socialist Democratic Party
Pakistan Socialist Democratic Party never participated into any election in Pakistan, as it is formed in June 11, 2005.
 * False. You tried this over at Wikipedia.  You'll get the same short shrift here as there. Uncle G 08:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can you take a look
at this please, and perhaps make some comments? I appealed for comments on the same issue a few weeks back but only recieved a limited response :-( Dan100 (Talk) 17:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congratulations, Uncle G! You're now a Wikinews Administrator. You now have the nearly-thankless job you volunteered for &mdash; namely, dealing with vandalism and having everyone complain when you do something wrong. ;-) Good luck and thanks! -- IlyaHaykinson 27 June 2005 17:20 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Uncle G! and thanks... (as usual) - Amgine/talk 27 June 2005 17:25 (UTC)


 * I noticed the sudden appearance of the administrator tools. Now I won't be able to tell that I'm editing Wiktionary by their presence. &#9786; Uncle G June 27, 2005 17:28 (UTC)

An invitation
I'm attempting to start up a new edition of Wikinews, one with a simpler user contributions system at Wikinews/Start a new edition. The goals of this project would be to simplify the process of submitting articles such that anyone with no knowledge of the Mediawiki software or the Wikimedia projects culture can easily understand and submit an article, and immediately see it on the main page developing articles section.

If you would be interested in supporting this project I would be pleased if you would sign up at the Meta page.

Thanks
Thanks for your work on the articles today, made a huge difference Dan100 (Talk) 7 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Quotation marks in headlines
Why do you dispute that it is journalism convention to use single quotes in headlines?

The following is a sample of style guides that say to use single quotes in headlines: http://www.uark.edu/~kshurlds/FOJ/punc.html
 * AP Stylebook
 * http://www.ukjournalism.org/default.asp?nc=1378&id=273 - ("All newspapers use single quote marks in headlines. Double quotes in headlines are the giveaway sign of the amateur journalist.")
 * http://www.bucknell.edu/About_Bucknell/Offices_Resources/Communications/Visual_Identity_Guidelines_Bucknell_Style_Guide/Style_Guide/Punctuation.html
 * http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/quotation.htm
 * http://www.wilbers.com/quotes.htm
 * http://www.wright.edu/admin/cm/editorial/grammar/punctuation.html
 * http://essayinfo.com/sguides/quotation.php
 * http://www.refresher.com/!editpros18.html
 * http://www.staff.fcps.net/wturner/sportswriting.htm
 * http://home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/qthrur.htm
 * http://www.startribune.com/stories/163/5421774.html
 * http://uanews.org/media/styleguide.html
 * http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/styleguide/qthrur.htm
 * http://lakernet.mercyhurst.edu/departments/pr/documents/style_guide.pdf
 * http://www.pmc.purdue.edu/pages/communications/edit_style_guide.html
 * http://www.grammardoctor.com/archive8.htm

The following style guides say to use double quotes in headlines:
 * 

Why I plan to revert your last edit to the style guide
Hello. Your last edit to the WN:SG (diff) is being reverted since it does not serve the purpose of bringing WN volunteer writers into a more professionally accepted level of writing within the larger journalism community. If Wikinews is to fulfill its goals, one of which includes being a free news source for other news organizations, we should not dismiss or fail to adopt common standards of the profession. Secondly, concerning the edit comment for that change, may I remind you that although some here may revel in their amateur journalist status, other WN contributors have been professional journalists for years. It may be a disincentive for more professional journalists to join our ranks if we perpetuate that Wikinews is a "step down" from "real" journalism or has institutionalized lower quality standards for our work product. By the way, when we were writing up the original headline policy back in January we simply failed to add this common practice since most everyone back then used single quotes in headlines. -- Davodd | Talk 21:10, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Move vandalism
Your user pages were move-vandalised earlier today - your user and user talk pages were swapped over. You might want to move-protect your user pages to prevent this! Dan100 (Talk) 17:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've move-protected them on the grounds that they have been targets for recurrent page-move vandalism. Uncle G 11:16, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing my user page... I began reverting moves from the wrong place on the list... --Chiacomo (talk) 05:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Portal Template
Thank you very much for making the Portal template. I think it'll come in really handy for new users who want to make a portal for their area. One thing, though: the category pages should just have transclusions to the portal page, so we only have to update the portal page. Thanks, NGerda 17:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they shouldn't. I've come up with a solution that should satisfy everyone.  Wait a while.  I'm setting it up for Pakistan and India as a proof of concept. Uncle G 17:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Region Subdivisions
G, we already had these. Dan100 apparently reverted all of my work. Damn. Oh well, I'm done trying to make a viable Portal organization system. Have fun! -- NGerda 18:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, I wonder if NGerda will ever get over that. Ilya, Vask and I all objected strongly to the Portal namespace proposal, so it was binned. Interesting work you're carrying out now though, Uncle G. Dan100 (Talk) 18:38, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Dan, I was referring to the Region Subdivisions template, as the title of this talk section appears to be. -- NGerda 18:40, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I hope that what I'm doing will satisfy all parties, including both of you. I think that it will allow the use of DPL in the main namespace to pick up developing stories without the need to use a new namespace to separate portals from the main namespace. I'm busy writing up the scheme in another browser window. Wait a while. When I've finished, I'll put a notice on the Water Cooler. Uncle G 18:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ooh
Wow, I was watching what you were up to overnight, I think it's looking great. I'm sure everyone's concerns can be incorporated into what you've done - please do keep an eye on the developing Quakers portal, particularly if you're planning an article submission box cos Dan's already made one that's working perfectly. Will go learn the new system now! ClareWhite 08:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

portal fun
I really enjoyed creating the Burundi portal earlier! You've created a really good system. Sorry, I didn't notice on your earlier comment that you had taken the Q page into account, hope it can be a helpful model. Will enjoy working more with you on this ClareWhite 18:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Future talk 2
Hello, I would like to invite you to attend our second future talk, it will be held on Monday, August 1 at 21:00 UTC. It will be held on the Wikinews IRC channel #wikinews For more information please see the page on meta The main topics will be audio Wikinews, WNN and portals/neighborhoods It would be great if you will be able to attend. --Cspurrier 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work
We haven't really interacted much on Wikinews, but I'd like to say that I am impressed by your quiet and dedicated work on the project: fixing errors, making useful changes, and handling vandals. You've already received trophies, so I will save you the picture spam. But you should know that I appreciate what you're doing, and I'm sure that everyone else does, too. Please do keep up the good work!--Eloquence 05:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Are you subtly trying to point out that I've been busy elsewhere for a week?  &#9786; User:Uncle G's 'bot has been filling in for me.  Nearly 300 articles need to be transwikied from Wikipedia to Wiktionary.  (Transwiki backlogs had built up whilst no 'bots were available.  I've just reduced the Wikipedia&rarr;Wikibooks one.)  So I'll be busy elsewhere for a little while longer. Uncle G 14:20:36, 2005-08-20 (UTC)

Portal discussion
Hi there, I know you're busy but since you wrote most of the Category Portal page could you give your views briefly on the discussion at the watercooler? I thought your system was very neat and I'd like to see us able to put it into action but we need consensus and, er, I think everyone's feeling a bit discussed out with it :) Thanks! ClareWhite 08:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

New article Inputbox discussion on Water Cooler
Hey Uncle G... I'm interested in your comments here: Water_cooler/technical. - Borofkin 00:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

New page bot
Hi, could you instruct your bot to only substitute the date, using a regex or similar? Currently it seems to replace the entire page with a template, making it very difficult to change the template text itself.--Eloquence 23:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I notice that you haven't actually changed the template that the 'bot substitutes (the one documented on the 'bot's user page) yet. Uncle G 15:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got a question about sandbot
I was looking at the sandbox, and I thought it might be better if the text was changed to
 * Welcome to the Wikinews sandbox. Feel free to experiment here. See Help:Contents for help with editing.

What do you think? Bawolff ☺☻ 00:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed the mechanism to operate as it does on Meta, Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikipedia, and other projects, so that you can change the default appearance, that the sandbox is reset to, to whatever you choose. You'll see the new mechanism the next time that SANDBOT runs. Uncle G 15:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Category:Main Page
I thought that category was no longer in use for articles. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why did you revert those edits? He wrote the article from the begining...I queston your moves on the whale article. Jason Safoutin 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as the story is breaking news it can be changed. I question those moves. There are no articles on the death...unless you consider 1 sentence an article. Jason Safoutin 19:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you doing? That is NOT an article...one sentence is not an article...your actions are unjustified. Jason Safoutin 20:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

the css IE rendering
I took all the screenshots myself, then compiled them using photoshop. The IE version of the logo is HUGE (the red extends for a whole page) so I cropped it to show the face only. Achille 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

daily
Cool, that will be far better :) Save everyone some time. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

New page / Bot
Unfortunately, your Bot does not like to work anymore, at least as far as the Template:New page is concerned. Maybe he was surprised about February ending already after 28 days. ;-) Could you try to convince him to do this job, again? That would be nice. --Angela H. 14:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

G, You interested in making the new page bot give tomorrows date instead of today's date? It should mean we'd start out each day with news, which would look more professional. Thoughts? Nyarlathotep 21:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Rfda
This is a message to inform you that I have added every administrator to the Rfda section on WN:A. This is not personal and I feel as if the community, who did not have the option of voting for or against most of the administrators, should be able to choose who they want to be in charge. I also want to say that I value everyones work on this site and I know that everyone does their best. I hope that none of you will take this personally and I hope that all of us will continue to work together. Jason Safoutin 12:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Heads up -- My log in blocked
Hi!
 * xpost from

''I just made a major change here which seemed worth my time considering the skimpy and overly narrow focus of the original source articles. I know you're into the international side of matters, and it's a lot more relevant that way now. Since you're my sole contact over here (I know of too, I guess), and my log-in is currently blocked (corrupt password? I won't know til I get home to see email) I thought I ought to flag the item and request backup copy edits for style, etc. here. ''


 * I saw you edited the article a few days back, and I really don't know the ropes here, like on Wiktionary!
 * Gotta run. I'm way overdue! Happy holidays! Best wishes, and 24.128.38.95 17:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

your bots alive
yea!! Bawolff ☺☻ 00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just re-enabled some of the daily scheduled tasks. I'm double-checking the edits across several projects right now, since this is the first run.  It should have been just the sandbox clearance, but I see that it edited the new page template as well.  I thought that I had disabled that. Uncle G 00:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that I've identified the problem. Editing the new page template should be properly disabled, now.  I'll double-check on the next run. Uncle G 00:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New Policy has users up in smoke
Hello. I am not sure if you check this page anymore, but I thought you might be interested as to what is going on here at Wikinews: Image use policy/New wikimedia policy action plan. I am outraged as well as others...do you have an opinion? DragonFire1024 09:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * hi, thanks for expanding the FAQ. i saw your comment that the FAQ (a good deal of which i wrote) had a "whole slew of errors". i took a look at the diff, and while u've expanded and rewritten a good chunk of it, i couldn't make out any egregious errors in the original version. so was curious and wanted to check with you on it. –Doldrums(talk) 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well for starters the original text implied (and indeed Image use policy/New wikimedia policy action plan still implies &mdash; That also requires fixing.) that there has somehow been a change in policy (There hasn't. These are the same WMF requirements that Wikinews had to satisfy in June 2005.) and that we needed to create a fair use policy (We've already had one for over 20 months.). Uncle G 10:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Images
You need to read what you are doing. One, the images that your restored edit to, that I reverted, are completely compatible with Wikinews, and it states that clearly, but a template cannot be found. DragonFire1024 07:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC) This policy was not voted on by the community as we usually do. It is under debate and we have a little less than a year to find the proper licenses and such. And Edbrown is right...this is a resolutin'. Again we are a news site...and we are also NOT wikipedia. We have policies separate from them indcluding a fair use policy, which is NOT on Wikipedia. And I am not liking your attitude towards me. DragonFire1024 08:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Non-free images must have detailed fair use rationales. This is non-negotiable. Uncle G 07:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do NOT threaten ME at all or anyone else on this Wiki. That is UNACCEPTABLE. You need to read the images sources, the licenses and such. You cannot add templates to images that are compatible with wikinews such as those flickr images. Please read what you are doing as you IMO are not. And again, do not threaten me, DragonFire1024 07:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly acceptable to warn you that what you are doing will lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Such warnings are quite normal.  I strongly suggest that you take heed of this one.  Uncle G 07:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S> i am also an administrator. Please do not threaten ANYONE. DragonFire1024 07:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you should know better than to work against our copyright policies. Uncle G 07:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a news agency. We need images that sometimes quailfy as FAIR USE but are copyrighted. If you expect to delete every image that is like that, then we may as well delete every image on Wikinews. It is 100% impossible for any news agency anywhere to use 100% FREE images. Since this so called policy is in debate, adding tags then threatening users is grounds for disruption. You have refused to comment on any of these images. These images are fir use as stated in the sources etc. The flickr images are also fair use as they state on the page. They just need a template. I am violating nothing. I am following the LAWS of copyright, and no one is above the law. Not even WMF. DragonFire1024 07:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy is not up for debate. It is a non-negotiable policy set by the Wikimedia Foundation.  The remainder of your statement above is a straw man of your own invention.  You clearly haven't read either the notice or the category description.  I suggest actually reading them.  I also suggest going back and read Image use policy/New wikimedia policy action plan/FAQ once again. Uncle G 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not wikipedia. DragonFire1024 07:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikinews is a Wikimedia Foundation project, and bound by the same Foundation policy as all other projects. Uncle G 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And that states ntohing about what is considered fair use rational and states nothing about how to word it. DragonFire1024 07:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Of course it does.  It has a whole section on what the necessary components of a fair use rationale are. Uncle G 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The image issue is not a non-negotiable, it is a resolution, nothing more. -Edbrown05 07:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wrong. It is a statement clarifying what Foundation policy is and always has been.  It is not up for debate and it is not up for administrators on any Foundation project to simply decide that they can opt out of it.  The commitment to free content is a Foundation issue that is beyond debate, and providing rationales for the limited use of non-free content is a requirement of the Foundation. Uncle G 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't get to vote on the Wikimedia Foundation's commitment to free content. And, once again: This policy is not up for debate.  You have a year to supply fair use rationales (exactly as the tag that you were removing told you, had you read it).  Now you can contribute positively to Wikinews by adding such rationales (I've already given you a link to a page explaining what is necessary.) or you can continue as you have been, which is in fact contributing negatively to Wikinews, and actively working to thwart efforts to bring Wikinews into line with Foundation policy.  The latter will lead to your editing privileges being revoked, as I said.  Yes, this is harsh and stark, but you clearly need a a harsh and stark warning to this effect at this point.  You are not helping the project.   If you continue to work against ensuring that a Wikimedia Foundation project complies with the requirements of copyright in the way that the Foundation says it must, you will end up being denied access to the project.  Please don't become the first Wikinews administrator to have xyr sysop bit taken away by Jimbo.  Uncle G 08:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest that both parties involved calm down. While the warning was perfectly valid, neither of you are helping the situation by arguing further. Pour some WN:TEA and return to discuss this in a civilised manner, without the hostility. --Skenmy(t•c•w•i) 08:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC) If you threaten me again, then there will be issues. You have no right, as an inactive admin, to come here and threaten anyone for any reason. Your attitude is not welcome and if you want to continue to discuss anything with me then you need to change it. Your threatening users is "not helping the project." DragonFire1024 08:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC) You have it wrong. I am saying that I am not going to follow Wikipedia's image policy on fair use when we have our own. this image: Image:G8 Glenealges logo.png is not affected by the "resolution", setting aside the fact that is has no source. It is a logo and logos are no affected. I stated the rules that the resolution says on US copyright laws. Most of these images from US sources, fall under the laws of copyright. And that means WMF is not above those laws. DragonFire1024 10:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm quite calm, thank you. Uncle G 08:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again: Warning you that what you are doing will lead to your privileges being revoked is perfectly valid and perfectly normal. It is a warning based upon a lot of experience (Rather than "inactive admin" you should have written "experienced admin".), and watching several editors and administrators lose their privileges on various projects over the years.  As I said, please don't be Wikinews' first.  Uncle G 08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Experienced? I have been active for more than one year, and since that year I have seen you make very small edits and very few. It is NOT normal to threaten anyone for anything like you have. That is unacceptable and considered disruption of the site. If you block anyone or "several admins" you better have a good reason. DragonFire1024 09:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, experienced. The links on the user page are there for a reason.  Uncle G 09:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * UncleG should not be saying something is that is not. I can find the exact wording but do I need too? The foundation image policy is a "resolution" that applies as wikis see fit to apply them. Maybe here that application is not so formal because... woot?... we're not an encylocopedia. -Edbrown05 08:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. DragonFire1024 08:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy is to have free content and to have non-free content in limited cases, with explicit rationales for each individual case. It applies to all projects.  There is no leeway for "wikis to see fit" to choose not to apply it.  "It's only a resolution." is an attempt to weasel out of this that will fail.  A resolution of the Foundation Board, passed by unanimous vote, is not a mere suggestion. Uncle G 08:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It also satets: a project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status. Which means, WMF is not above the law. And the law states that these images are fair use and are properly licensed. DragonFire1024 08:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They do not, however, have detailed rationales explaining how their specific uses in Wikinews fall within the remit of fair use. That is a requirement.  This was explained here in March 2007.  It was explained again here in April 2007.  The resolution says this.  Image use policy/New wikimedia policy action plan/FAQ explains it, too.  How many more times does this have to be explained? Uncle G 09:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It even goes further to state: and existing media under such licenses should go through a discussion process where it is determined whether such a rationale exists; if not, they should be deleted as well, which you are failing to do, discuss them. DragonFire1024 08:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. Collecting the images that we have to determine detailed fair use rationales for is exactly what the category is for. As I said before, you clearly haven't read either the notice or the category description page.  Please read. Uncle G 09:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A resolution is merely a suggestion. So never mind, Wikinews will work it out. -Edbrown05 08:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. You will not be able to weasel out of this with "It's only a suggestion.", as I said.  And Wikinews is working it out, efforts to the contrary notwithstanding.  The necessary step in working it out, as the FAQ explains, is to add the fair use rationales.  Wikinews now has a category for all of the non-free images that require the addition of detailed fair use rationales.  Editors who wish to make positive and productive contributions to the process of working it out will sit down and write detailed fair use rationales, using these guidelines for reference.  Negative contributions, such as simply de-tagging images without adding rationales, or continual assertions (such as yours) that "Wikinews can just ignore this.", will end up, in the best case, with a whole load of images deleted by fiat on March 28, 2008, and in the worst case with administrators and editors who are militating against the process of bringing Wikinews into compliance with Foundation policy losing their privileges.  I reiterate for the third time: Please don't be the administrators and editors who will end up in this position.  We have had people lose their privileges for fighting Foundation copyright policy before. Uncle G 09:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your assertations, as they stand are threats to me and every user on Wikinews. Stop the threatening and stop making it sound like you know everything there is to know about Wikinews and etc. I read everything. Sometimes more than I should. I also read US copyright laws, and again the WMF is NOT above those laws or any law for that matter, and neither are you. Do not quote Wikipedia, we are NOT wikipedia and we have our own set of image policies including an EDP. DragonFire1024 09:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is patently wrong. They are not worries for "every user on Wikinews".  They are only worries for editors who are, as you have been, actively working against having Wikinews conform to the requirements for non-free content.  I reiterate: That road leads to loss of privileges.  Editors who insist upon not adhering to the copyright policies regularly lose privileges on Foundation projects.  This is not a novelty.  We've had plenty of warning in years gone by about it, too. Furthermore: Letting yourself be blinded by a "We are not Wikipedia." reflex will not serve you well.  The guidelines that I've pointed to are useful, explaining in detail as they do the fair use rationales that are required.  Ignoring them because someone else wrote them is simply foolishness.  Once again:  The Foundation policy applies across the board and uniformly to all Foundation projects.  Wikinews doesn't get to ignore it, and Wikinews administrators don't get to opt out of it. Uncle G 10:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not Wikipedia. If you want a WP policy, write in on WP. I am done having any discussion wityh you. You continuing to threaten users is 100% unacceptable and is not welcome. Talk to me when you are not hostile. DragonFire1024 10:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have not threatened "users", and it is not I who is being hostile here. I have warned you, several times, based upon experience, of what the consequences will be of working to thwart copyright policy.  I see that you didn't read what I wrote about the "We are not Wikipedia." reflex.  Please read.  Uncle G 10:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read it...and I am following US copyright laws. It is not my problem if you choose to think WMF or anyone else is above the laws. And again, Wikinews has their own policeies and guidelines. We do not need someone voicing WP policies, when we have our own as stated above. DragonFire1024 10:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't. That you aren't reading at all what people are telling you is evident from the fact that you keep talking about things being "above the law", despite the fact that only you have ever said any such thing, and that you are still thinking that this is a Wikipedia policy, despite it having been explained to you, at length, both here and on April 3, 2007, that this is a Wikimedia Foundation policy, and Wikinews is a Wikimedia Foundation project.  Once again: How many more times does this have to be explained?  Uncle G 10:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RFDA
Please note i have put you up for de-admining at Administrators --Mark Talk to me 16:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Scandal erupts after U.S. President Barack Obama fires Inspector General Gerald Walpin
Uncle G,

Would you mind doing a peer review for the article above?

Thanks. --WNewsReporter (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nadal
Ah, it looks like the Borg quote I added has now been removed from the BBC article where it was? Dotty•• |&#9742; 18:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's all right. As you can see, I've found two sources. Uncle G (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah cool! Dotty•• |&#9742; 19:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Former U.S. Inspector General Gerald Walpin requests congressional hearings on his firing; conservatives rally in support
Uncle G,

Would you mind doing a peer review for the article above?

Thanks. --WNewsReporter (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor
I assume you noticed, you've been granted editor privilege. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Primarily for other people's benefit, I gather.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarkozy says burqa is "not welcome" in France
I replied on my talk page ... I don't feel strongly about it ... you can change the title ... you have editor status and can sight your own edits. I am signing off. Cheers and happy editing. --SVTCobra 02:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

U.K. versus UK
I have copied the little chat on this to the water cooler Water_cooler/policy for further discussion. --SVTCobra 00:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't seen this before I had done the same at Water cooler/proposals. &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sonora authorites arrest 7 state officials over Mexico childcare centre fire
Merged your title and used your beginning as the lead in the re-titled Authorites arrest 7 state officials over Mexico childcare centre fire. And offered you the credit on talk page and in history of article. You had the good beginnings for your article! SriMesh | talk  04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, feel free to use whatever was useful. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

John Bercow
Greetings. You reverted my deletion of a quote from Gordon Brown which you claimed was "easily verifiable" from the given references; yet I can't seem to find it. Could you point me in the right direction? --78.149.138.170 (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I do believe I've found the exact quote of Brown:


 * You said that you had now cast aside all your past political views; some of us thought you had done that some time ago.


 * If this is the only thing Brown said on the subject, then I was correct in pointing out the quote in the article which you restored was indeed a repeat of the quote of Bercow. I'm going to edit it again because there is no reason, stylistically or practically, to quote someone twice. --78.149.138.170 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and of course the small matter of it being libellous to insinuate someone said something they didn't! --78.149.138.170 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's just ridiculous. The text didn't insinuate anything of the sort; which you clearly know because you read it as, and have three times now referred to it as, the quite clear reference to Bercow's own words that it actually was.  Just as Brown himself was referring to those words, in fact.  Uncle G (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an awkward paraphrase that doesn't intend to insinuate Brown said the quote but looks like it does. --78.149.138.170 (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your very own earlier descriptions of it undermine your argument that it "looks like it does". It seems quite clear that what it actually looked like to you was not that at all, but was in fact the reference that it was.  And the point that it is ridiculous to suppose a libel issue here still stands.  It was a paraphrase.  Of course it was a paraphrase.  It was indirect speech, for starters.  Whether it was awkward or not is a separate matter, and a simple matter of choice of phraseology.  That doesn't support absurd notions of libel.  Uncle G (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"WWW"
Please substitute "web" for "WWW". "WWW" is not used in any type of formal writing and commons style is to use the term "web site", "web servers", etc. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. "WWW" is not only the normal abbreviation of its proper name, but is used in all sorts of "formal writing", not the least of which include the names of international conferences on the subject, such as the International WWW Conference. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Brazil defeats South Africa 1-0, set for rematch in FIFA Confederations Cup Final
Uncle, can you review (sighted) the notice Brazil defeats South Africa 1-0, set for rematch in FIFA Confederations Cup Final?

Thanks! Vitorbraziledit talk 18:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Uncle G, you are an Editor. Can you review the article and make it sighted? Vitorbraziledit talk 02:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hum... You didn't understand me. You have Editor flag (of Flagged Revisions), you can make it sighted! Vitorbraziledit talk 02:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can, indeed. But I'd like to see the issues that I pointed out on the talk page addressed first.  They shouldn't be too hard to fix. Uncle G (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Heads up!
Talk:U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images/NPG statement just in my email. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone other than me needs to email mgodwin at wikimedia dot org, he has correspondence later than the 2006 stuff. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I replied to the NPG statement email... Many thanks for promptly providing the statement. The situation has caused somewhat of a stir in the Wikimedia community.

It has been brought to my attention that an Internet Protocol address of 217.207.85.50 has been editing Wikipedia [1], and that this address belongs to the National Portrait Gallery.

Understandably, among the contributions are evidence of the dispute between the NPG and the Wikimedia community. Many biographical articles have been edited to insert a claim of copyright over images in use.

However, the first contribution of this address [2] is concerning. Here a copyright claim is asserted over an image from the National Library of Medicine in the United States [3]. The most recent edits made from this address, [4] and [5], are more concerning. These insert “CHINK” and “FUCKING CHINK!” into the article about YouTube’s founder, Steve Chen.

Is the address 217.207.85.50 available to the public while visiting the gallery, or are all these edits (See [1]) activity of NPG staff?

Regards,

Brian McNeil

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=217.207.85.50 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosalind_Franklin&diff=prev&oldid=63578539 [3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rosalind_Franklin.jpg [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_Chen_%28YouTube%29&diff=prev&oldid=301377059 [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Steve_Chen_%28YouTube%29&diff=prev&oldid=301376954

--Brian McNeil / talk 11:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a response from the UK's Open Rights Group. It's on the talk, up to you how to incorporate it. I think the only thing I'd try and hold off for now is a statement from the WMF (i.e. Jay Walsh). I expect something soon. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Article is up, had a fair old go at a rewrite and rearrangement. Jay Walsh's statement was a late addition about an hour after publication, and (check talk) the BBC are now carrying the story. Google News is also being curious about it - didn't put us top of the list of articles, but thinks we're the ones to take a huge pull-quote from. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked over FT2's changes in detail yet. I've been busy in Another Place (several, actually).  I was slightly concerned that some information had been lost and some bias introduced by them.  I was being quite careful with what I originally wrote about the Museums Copyright Group, for example, stating just the facts without implying any conclusions.  Similarly, the problems observed on the talk page with the legal issues text that FT2 added, are the reasons that I was quite careful when writing up the legal issues. It's good that people are coming to us for coverage of this.  I was aiming to provide a better, more comprehensive, article than had been published by any other news service thus far.  Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the things Wikinews is missing - a few legal experts on retainer. Or... A handful of reputable law practices that's interested in commenting for us to get their name mentioned. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That latter is a good idea. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming this NPG thing will go further so am still sending out emails on it. If you want me to forward you copies let me have an email address to forward them to. So far I've sent one to the EFF lawyer representing Derrick pro-bono, a response to Jim Killock at the ORG to get further comment than their hurried statement and, because this issue doesn't just exist in the UK, to the Louvre. The latter due to the Mona Lisa being on Commons. There is some to-and-fro over copyright to be seen in the file history on that. The end result is that it appears someone uploaded a high-res version taken from the Louvre website and the Louvre no longer makes that available, having replaced it with a small version which includes the frame.

Oh, and despite a kinda wishy-washy initial article on this from the BBC I have reason to believe they'll do further coverage. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC has. See Wikipedia painting row escalates.  Uncle G (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also this BJP article. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

OMG you edit
Good to see you around. Haven't seen you in a while around here. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that all of the people lost in the encylopaedia looking for a newspaper at Stephen Donald will come here. Feel free to push the article along. Uncle G (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2010 (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) 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I know you haven't been around in a while........
...but, you still earned this!

Please consider becoming active again! --Bddpaux (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)