Thanks. If you see any room for improvement on them, I appreciate your help, too. Tomos 06:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wanted to commend you for doing a great job of doing systematic fact-checking of articles. Your work on checking USL v. BSDi settlement agreement unsealed is exactly what I think verification needs to be for Wikinews to be not just up to date but also accurate. -- IlyaHaykinson 22:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you. :-) It takes time and patience. I think the same kind of thing could be done at the stage of writing, too. See, for example, Talk:Lycos launches screensaver to increase spammers' bills. Tomos 02:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sysop status granted
I've made you a sysop. Thanks for helping out.--Eloquence 01:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Tomos 09:54, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
TS Media Contacts.
I nominated it before the current discussions.. Maybe it should be moved to a project namespace -- like Wikinews:Tsunami Help/Media contacts. As long as it's off the main namespace and not readily searchable (or random page generatable) as a news item. -- Davodd | Talk 05:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment ...
... on the Trio story -- and thanks for taking on this Tsunami Help turmoil. Truth be told, I'd rather focus on building up writing resources for new and inexperienced writers (and the reputation) of Wikinews. You'll find me puttering around with writing policy, writing guides and such for the next few months -- as I try to develop ways to do original reportage that is completely fact-checkable via internet URL sources. Trio was a first step in that direction. I'm glad you liked the result. -- Davodd | Talk 05:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I was wondering how and where to start, etc. You kind of initiated the discussions and it got things rolling. I'm happy to do what I can. And I can see you can contribute a lot on those aspects of wikinews. Looking forward to seeing suggestions and drafts. Tomos 07:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the Indian Sensex plagiarism
It's disappointing that the original author thinks lack of time is a valid excuse for ripping off another site.
Someone even tried to use an anonymous IP address to hide the evidence.
Thanks for keeping out a sharp eye for this type of thing.
— DV 05:57, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Um.. to be honest, I personally did not know if that was kind of bad enough to warrant deletion.. Fair use is a complex stuff I am still learning. But thank you for your kind words. :) Tomos 07:44, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While the specific issue was resolved, I'm afraid my opinion regarding Davodd remains that the user is a little too quick to judgement, and needs some time to develop a more relaxed approach to Wikinews. I've seen great improvements in the past few days, but I would prefer to see change over a longer period of time.
As for 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, as far as I can tell there is no copyvio involved; all material which was copy/pasted was under GFDL, and therefore available for copying and pasting. However, it may have been in violation of Wikinews policy. If that is the case, then of course the optional undelete would be a better choice. One thing to consider, however, is that a number of edits have been applied *since* the reversion, and I do not recall if the optional undelete allows for undeleting the later version only. (not to mention this would violate the spirit of the GFDL if it did, since the edit histories might then be lost.) - Amgine 08:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Regarding Davodd, I understand your concern and I also think that he may adjust himself over time. Or it is simply the shock of encountering the state of wiki as an experienced wikipedian and professional journalist. I wouldn't be surprised though, if we come to understand him better and realize that he is very suited for an administrator. He obviously has many strengths and I am sure some of them are not yet to be presented.
- Regarding copying and pasting of GFDL'd document, I don't think it is that obvious.. Have you read pages like w:Wikipedia:Copyrights and w:Wikipedia:Verbatim_copying? More straightforward reading of the GFDL is that unless we meet certain requirements, we cannot copy and paste texts from Wikipedia. Tomos 13:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Everyone happy? Well, I am.
Thanks for bringing your comments on that particular talk page to my attention. Basically, I'm happy with the solution that you propose, which involves moving things into the Wikinews namespace. I'm not sure that that's really what it's designed for, but it's an acceptable compromise for now.
I would support the establishment of policy in the future which states that Wikinews is only for Wikinews, and not for well-intentioned projects like this, however. If people running similar projects in the future want to use Wikimedia to coordinate their efforts, then I would ask them to first ask for permission on meta:, or from the foundation itself, to find them a home where they're anticipated, rather than simply squatting as they did.
However, that's all worries for the future. Thankyou for keeping a level head and attempting to bring about compromise on this issue, in the true Wiki spirit. I think that your arrangement will work to the satisfaction of all parties involved.
Lankiveil 06:03, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC).
Thank you too for your nice words and appreciation of what I am trying. I hope I am not far off. If I am, I hope you would intervene and hlep.
Regarding the future, I agree most of your ideas. But I think Jimbo received email about this and said yes at some point. That is perhaps why people started coming without asking anything to the community, I am guessing.. Tomos 12:46, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Activity, policy, and futures
Could you join #wikinews? The activity on Wikinews seems to be in free-fall, due primarily to almost no article development imo. I am not contributing due to policy questions, which are not being addressed due to lack of activity, etc. - Amgine 03:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I'm coming now. Tomos 03:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thought you might want to take a look-see? - Amgine 04:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: Heavy Lift Delta Launch Issues
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you; got caught up in other journalistic pursuits. Anyway, about the Heavy Lift Delta article. The first one was screwed up. It contained copyrighted text, was poorly written, and without sources. I edited it to fix the mistakes, but somebody had alreay written a copyright issue comment on it and an admin or mod, forget which, said the article had to be re-written because of the copyright comment. I then proceeded to rewrite the article from scratch and added the appropriate sources under a new heading. Samatheson 04:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That time of the year again
This is a form letter that I am putting on the talk page of every admin: As you may know, we are approaching April 1. In many cultures, this is a time for pranksters to pull w:April Fools jokes on others. Because of the ease of editing, wiki projects tend to fall prey to these types of pranks rather easily. Let this be a reminder to us all to keep a special lookout for hoaxes, rampant fiction and other random acts of content vandalism between now and April 2. Good luck, and hopefully not too much damage will be done. -- Davodd | Talk 07:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi Tomos. Nice to see you editing on Wikinews again. Just wanted to say hi :) -- IlyaHaykinson 18:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm ashamed of my long, unexcused absense.. but nice to know someone still remembers me and even welcomes my return. A proof that this is a nice place! :) Tomos 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Tomos! I hadn't seen your edits, but glad to see you as well! - Amgine | talk en.WN 18:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Hi, Amgine. I'm glad to see that you and IlyaHaykinson are stil around and active. Nice to see you again!
I thought this might be confusing when I posted it. Here it goes: an "oppose" means you do not want him de-admined. A "support" means you do want him de-admined. From there he would go up for adminship again where it would be the opposite. But this is just the first vote.
2. You might be correct here, but since the voting has already begun I think it's probably too late. Something to remember for next time I guess. thanks. --MateoP 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I tried to offer clarification on the RfA page for others who might get confused. I hope attempt would not create a source of confusion, but if you could replace my awkward explanation with your words, that would be good. Tomos 23:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
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 12:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it is a bit too late to come here, but I was not locked out. That guy, whoever it was, was fake. Tomos 07:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Deleting broken redirects
Hi there... I noticed that you've deleted some broken redirects. While this is perfectly allowed, it's best to not delete them. See, deleting them adds work to the server even though they're not causing any trouble being broken redirects. So you should either fix them or leave them alone. —
this is messedrocker
(talk) 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I see. I've read Wikinews:Speedy deletion guidelines and followed it, but perhaps we should change it.
I was also wondering if it was necessary to delete talk pages of a deleted article. Some cases, it does carry some useful information, such as neutrality disputes. Would you say they are better left undeleted as well?
I will go ahead and suggests a change for speedy deletion anyway. Thank you for the tip. And am I right in assuming that now that I have deleted almost all of them, I should leave them deleted?
Tomos 22:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- There's really no need to change policy: while deleting broken redirects is perfectly valid, it doesn't really accomplish anything and so adds useless work for the server. And since you already deleted them, just leave them deleted. As for talk pages of deleted articles, there's generally no need to keep them, unless they contain things like deletion debates that aren't recorded anywhere else. —
this is messedrocker
(talk)23:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleting broken redirects is a good thing, it prevents a user from click a blue link and discovering that the page does not infact exist.--Cspurrier 03:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
In my personal opinion, it is not a big issue. The chance of someone coming across a broken redirect is probably small, and it seems Messedrocker is of the opinion that server load increase from the deletion of broken redirects is small as well.
But it is kind of inefficient that we inform admins through personal communication that broken redirects should remain undeleted because of server load while the speedy deletion guideline says you can delete them. It is more efficient to change the guideline, or at least inform them of the server load issue on the guideline. Tomos 14:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I created it as Liverpool Evil Cabal. It was FellowWikiNews who renamed it.--Irate 15:19, 11 August 2006 (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: 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)
Thanks. I do check this page from time to time. I will take a look at the page you pointed. Tomos 04:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing the duplicate articles on "Chemical Ali". However, please don't tag both as merge. This tag is a "dispute" tag and unpublishes the article. Tag only the newer version, or in this case (they were created in the same minute) tag the lesser developed story. Thanks. --SVTCobra 12:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the tips. I will do that way next time (a further reply on SVTCobra's talk page). Tomos 13:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your updates to Wikinews:Template messages/Disputes look fine to me. I noticed that the instructions call for the Dupe template to be used on the talk (collaboration) page. I haven't been around too long, but I haven't seen anyone put it there. Oh, well. Thanks for your work.--SVTCobra 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. :) Thanks for the greeting. I am still not quite active, though.. Tomos 16:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tomos, just letting you know that I have initiated a discussion about potentially removing your sysop access due to inactivity. The discussion is at Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions#Requests_for_removal_of_access.
- The desysop request was closed as no consensus, your administrator rights have been retained. -- 14:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)