User:DragonFire1024/archive April08

Anonymous Protests (March 15)

Hi,
I noticed you attended the previous “anonymous” protests for Wikinews. Will you be able to cover the March 15 protests? Please be aware that preparation for the March 10 protest is being coordinated at this page. If you think you could report on the article for Wikinews add your name to the list.
Anonymous101 Talk 18:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Spitzer

I'm being gentlemanly here, but I hear you clearly.

Where's there's smoke, there's an opportunity to choke. The best commentary here is that the present political class is amoral. The talented people participate in commerce or medical research today, it appears, rather than politics, so hacks and folk with broken moral compasses pursue elctoral office. Obama, who is not a genius, appears and is, I bet, a choir boy compared to the female half of the criminal Clintons, and he's exploited her moral weakness by calling for a new politics. He means to say, I sense, let's elect politicans who aren't caked in criminal muck, and I am clean (or at least cleaner than she, and McCain, eventually).

Younger and less cynical citizens, by definition, are attracted to this appeal. Indeed, Obama and Spitzer are perfect political opposites. Watch out, Hillary.64.61.144.67 22:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)SLY 111

Lee Ritian

Hey DF, looks like you're going to have to nuke Li Ritian, Ritian Lee, Lee Ritian, Leeritian and Liritian again. I've warned the users, so if those links turn blue again you can safely block him (unless he was warned and blocked under another nick ... brb). Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks ok, no suspect usernames in the log that I could find. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

And looks like Jcart1534 got 'em first anyway. Never mind. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews Bulletin Delivery

About the Wikinews Bulletin The Wikinews Bulletin is a free internal newsletter for members of the Wikinews community. The newsletter is "staffed" by several editors, who produce the (more or less) fortnightly publication. Don't hesitate to join our team, or leave us a tip. The publication has produced nine issues.

--Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Tackling the tiny issue of global climate change

I was thinking the most interesting way to tackle climate change would be to start local...how does climate change impact New York State or even the Buffalo region? (Something about Buffalo/Canadian climate connections would be good too). Nice thing about starting local is that there probably aren't many press requests to the Buffalo area park rangers or other experts so it wouldn't be that hard to get interviews/quotable e-mails (SUNY Buffalo professors might be another good place to get information). I found the two people I asked for help on my Wyoming piece, a USDA guy in Wyoming and a National Wildlife Federation woman in Colorado were very helpful.

If we could get a number of local reports, we can then step back and assess some of the larger issues using data that we have collected. Am also going to look at Brock's coding to see if I can put together a "Climate Change box" like he has for the Tour de Taiwan so articles link to each other.

Some instant resourcs: A brief on global warming in New York from the NWF. Haven't read this one. Thought the Wyoming one was pretty cursory (they were all put together by interns so aren't the greatest) but it might give you an idea about a hook for the story. One interesting thing is that "targetglobalwarming.com" is a site aimed at hunters and fisherman working to preserve wildlife--a lot of really scary articles on the general website about how trout streams are getting too hot for the fish. The site is a conscious effort on the part of the NWF, I believe a fairly green organization, to draw in a non-traditional constituency in the fight.

http://targetglobalwarming.org/new/newyork

New York Times archives are also easily available these days. Lot of these articles don't look that relevant but again something might pop out at you as a hook (a new report like the Ice Report you wrote on, a new piece of legislation, more general bad news on something). "New York Global Warming" might also turn up something interesting (I think we should probably stick to "Climate Change" in our own coverage as results seem to be real but unpredictable.)

http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=climate+change+new+york&srchst=nyt

New York Times also has occasional other coverage of climate change issues, had a piece on Yellowstone grizzlies a couple of days ago.

A good resource for general reports on water, particularly water law suits is:

http://www.uswaternews.com/archives/arcrights/arcrights.html

Only NY listing seems to be from 1999, but a good general resource on the knock down drag outs occuring over water everywhere.

Does this help? Are you part of a university with good online searches for journals and newspapers? If not and there is something you need, I can get stuff from the University of Wyoming which has okay but not brilliant search capabilities.

Though I'm now in Wyoming, I'm originally from Brooklyn, New York. Would be fun to eventually write something on how climate change has impacted Brooklyn (I grew up 2 blocks from Prospect Park, a real oasis of green. Interesting to see what has happened there.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leila Monaghan (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

oops, forgot to sign!

best, Leila

Leila Monaghan - (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Got your note, sounds good!

best, Leila Leila Monaghan - (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Image:Sedinta cu tarlev.jpg

It appears that your reasoning for deletion of this image was faulty. You said that there was no source, but it was clearly listed in the image file as this. --SVTCobra 02:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

image Image:Sedinta cu tarlev.jpg deleted

Hi, I'd like use this image(Image:Sedinta cu tarlev.jpg, * "Prime Minister Vasile Tarlev resigned" — Government of Republic of Moldova, 03/19/2008),

• image source
• page source

like an image from a news site, like the Image:Robert Maltby.jpg one. What kind of licence information should I apply to the images like that?

images and wikinews

Hi, what did you mean by your deletion summary of Image:Rocco38vc.jpg : no one wants to help on OTRS.. ? Do you lack OTRS people who will help with OTRS?

This image has had an outstanding OTRS permission email for a few days, as have a few others from the same email sender. I have had a quick read through Wikinews:Fair use and I have asked the sender for a more specific permission. John Vandenberg - (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

p.s. Which license does wikinews prefer? CC-BY-SA, or GFDL ? John Vandenberg - (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA is a better licence as it is more practical to reuse the content. Adambro - (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Listing at Wikinews Reports

Re: Banned film 'The Profit' appears on Web - I see that at Wikinews Reports the title of the post is "Banned Scientology film 'The Profit' appears on Web; Availble to those in USA" - First off, minor point, typo in "Availble", and secondly, that's fine if you want to go with that longer title, there, but I sorta feel that the shorter title here at the Wikinews page for the article works fine, it's not really a "Scientology film" that could give the wrong connotation, and also no need to have "Available to those in USA" - it's dealing with the Internet so it is really more of a world issue. Cirt - (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well available in the US because it was banned here, and I agree now, but i cannot change it without the google news entry being screwed up. Also if its not based on Scientology, then why did the Church ban it? Bed time for me for now. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no need to change it there, I just meant I'd rather not change the title, here. But saying "Scientology film" is a bit ambiguous - is it a film produced by the Church of Scientology? A film about Scientology (which the director has denied) ? This bit isn't really needed in the title because it's explained later in the article anyway. And the bit about "USA" is also somewhat ambiguous - there was initially some confusion as to whether the injunction by the Florida judge banned distribution of the film worldwide - or just in the United States, and different sources over the years have reported on that differently. So really, this Internet exposure is worldwide exposure - previously for 7 years, it really wasn't available for distribution not just in the U.S., but really anywhere, and now it has been made available on the Internet, which isn't localized to the U.S. Sorry for the long answer, but that's basically what I meant by my first response above. Cirt - (talk) 07:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I Changed the title, but it will not update in google. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 07:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no worries, thanks. Cirt - (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops...

I'll merge yours into mine, I went a bit more in depth in mine, plus title's more netural, IMO. --TUFKAAP - (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikileak

Please see Hartley's comment on the talk page - he is a critic of Scn but he is right there. Nothing new here and it is a manufactured mash-up of older materials, some not even from Scientology and not anything official in this form. I fixed a few errors in the text for you though. --JustaHulk - (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Everything here has been either written by hand by Hubbard himself, or was originally written by him and later typed up. New or not, this is the first time EVERYTHING has been released, online and in one place. All this is from the Church and is all followed by the Church...everything here is adfopted as such and it states that clearly in the very beginnin of the PDF, which i read nearly every one of the 612 pages. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well first then you must realize that this is not official but is from the Freezone:

From recall this is a record of the full OT VIII procedure of the Church of Scientology given on the Free Winds ship as delivered in 1991. Security there is very tight with detectors at the doors so that no original data can be removed. This debrief is something the Independent Field/Free Zone Scientology has been waiting many years to see. It is not the original nor is it a perfect record but it is accurate and will get the result if followed by a competent solo auditor who is flat on all earlier levels with all overts off. The wording of the processes are exact to the best of my recall and the procedures are exact for sure. Any differences are extremely minor (if at all). I spent several weeks reconstructing all this from memory (needless to say I have an excellent memory as a result of the rundown). I am breaking security as I disagree that this should only be released to an elite in Scientology. I do, however, ask it not be released to psyches or “squirrels” or anyone who will break the Independent Security Network and allow it to get back to the Church of Scientology. It would be best if they do not find out that we have it. Please treat this data responsibly. It is the key to the only truth possible.

Hey, I am trying to help you out here 8-) JustaHulk - (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

DF, why do you insist on continuing to parade your ignorance of Scientology? When I am trying to save you from yourself and make you look better? Why do you think the Keeping Scientology Working policy is confidential? What is your source? --JustaHulk - (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Here, maybe you will believe your fellow critic [1]:

"KSW No. 1 is the first policy letter of the Organization Executive Course. It is the first checksheet item on virtually every major course in Scientology. Everyone must comply with KSW to remain in Scientology. To not Keep Scientology Working is a Suppressive Act."

I won't fix it again but you might want to. --JustaHulk - (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Source please

Yes, I d/l'ed that on 1/23/08 along with some other stuff and verified the copy on Wikileaks is the same one. Do me a favor and take a fresh look and see if you can show me the page where your version of that "quote" comes from. Thx. --JustaHulk - (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Its from his notes. I read it and I am not about to search the pages again. And it also seems that others agree with me in reverting your edits. I also have others off Wikinews who confirm the article is correct and your edits are not. As I said before, i read almost all of the 612 pages with the exception of the worksheets. Did you read any? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Try page 39. Yes, I looked through a lot, if not all, of it recently. I have been involved with this material for 30 years and have seen almost all of this stuff on the net before and elsewhere. I would be surprised if you decided to leave a gross misquote in the article after being alerted to it. If it is because I am the one alerting you then that is rather petty, isn't it? --JustaHulk - (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is altered here. The quote today you attempted to change was merged form different sections. If I am wrong, why have others reverted your edits? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you are changing and paraphrasing and making up your own quote and calling it Hubbard's. What do you mean - this is the first time I changed the quote and you are the only one that reverted it. Surely you can look at the source and quote it correctly. If not, then you should consider removing the quote. --JustaHulk - (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

DF, I am really trying to "play nice" here, i.e. politely asking you to not misquote instead of my usual (bad) habit of losing my temper. I know that no-one here gives a shit about what I think or my feelings but this is a simple matter of journalistic integrity and professionalism. Quotes is quotes, my friend, you do not get to cobble up your own and misattribute it. Once again, please refer to the text of the document and correct the quote. Best. --JustaHulk - (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Please edit protected article and/or please consider removal of protection

Hello,

I request a small edit on a protected article In_depth:_XM_and_Sirius_merger.

Please change "exiting" to existing" in the sentence

"Both companies have made statements that subscribers' exiting receivers will continue to work."

In_depth:_XM_and_Sirius_merger.

The English Wikipedia [2] on this case links directly to the In depth news piece. In my opinion, the article needs to be reopened as events seem to be moving. The Wikipedia article seems to be up-to-date.

Department of Justice did not say it has any objection on the merger^[3]. FCC needs to give its verdict for the deal to be finalized.^[4].

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Regards,

Kushal one - (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep it up

Your contributions are most welcome to wikinews. Keep up the good work. --ANonHubbard - (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please continue contributing --Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) (Note I have no link with the organization anonymous) 07:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Brianmc

Wow, apparently I've never done anything here. I thought I was here for a while.

   * 23:43, 25 February 2007 The Inedible Bulk (Talk | contribs) Account created ‎

But OK. I'll ... let you delete it from the admin page if you think it's necessary. --The Inedible Bulk - (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

re: WN:WC and Wikinews firsts

Which in particular were the other 2 articles on Wikinews that have made it to the front page of Digg.com? Cirt - (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Death of Nancy Benoit rumour posted on Wikipedia hours prior to body being found and "Anonymous" releases statements outlining "War on Scientology" to my knowledge. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you find the other Digg.com links to back that up that it was those 2 articles in particular? It is important to nail these 3 "firsts" down specifically w/ links and stuff, in order to write about these firsts somewhere and chronicle them, perhaps on Wikinews/Wikipedia or both. Cirt - (talk) 09:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The only thing that would suggest main page on digg would be if it was popular. Benoit: [5]. Anon: [6]. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 09:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. Cirt - (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, the Digg.com link you gave for the Benoit article does not lead to a Wikinews article. Cirt - (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

fixed...see above again. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 10:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I opened this Who can vote on deletion requests discussion at the Water cooler. --SVTCobra 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hello

Thanks for the welcome back. I'm going into exams now, so of course the only way to procrastinate studying is doing stuff on Wikinews. After exams, I'll actually have real time to edit articles, etc. --Munchkinguy - (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Smoke from massive warehouse fire in Buffalo, New York USA can be seen 40 miles away

FYI: there is an open {{editprotected}} for this story. I thought I'd let you have first crack at it. --SVTCobra 23:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

If ythe community wants this to continue this dr let it continue. I made a mistake. Sorry, DragonFire. Unfourtunately, I am not perfect, I did something to avoid arguement and unfourtunately it made a gigantic mess. I am taking a break from this project because of this mess whoch I caused. I am sorry for what I did wrong. --A101 - (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I wanted it deleted was to prevent an argument which I expected to start, in addition to starting to doubt its notablility. You should blame me for this . I did make a mistake. I accept full responsibility. --A101 - (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Church of Scientology donates books to library in the Philippines

FYI adambro nominated this for deletion at WN:DR. You might want to take a look and comment or vote as you created the article. --A101 - (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Licensing note

Please see Licensing note, and it would be helpful if you could add the same disclaimer below mine accordingly, in case Ral315 (talk · contribs) wants to utilize info from that article on Wikipedia. Cirt - (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I am planning on using part of the story at this point, so if you could do so, I'd appreciate it. Ral315 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Cirt mentioned that you weren't going to dual-license, because you wanted Wikinews credited. I was planning on crediting Cirt and you, as well as Wikinews. However, if it's not licensed under GFDL, I can't use it at all. It's up to you, obviously, but I hope you'll reconsider. Ral315 (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Fraud charges filed in Belgium

FYI -- Fraud charges filed in Belgium. Not sure of other sources for this yet. Cirt - (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)