User talk:Brian McNeil/Archive 03
disputed semapedia article
I've added original reporting notes. Please take the time to look at the presentation at http://sohne.net/files/Semapedia.pdf and consider that to be the reporting notes. I didn't need to make notes, since I delivered the presentation myself. Guido 12:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding my RfA
I edited British National Party to tempt voters in May local elections, reverting your copy edit on one word before I noticed you had changed it. Please remove my edit if I have returned the word edited to a locally incorrect spelling. Karen 16:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sometimes my spelling isn't the best in the world, your spelling looks more correct to me so I'll leave it at that. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this article has met the criteria required for deletion.
hi!I stumbled upon this at the articles for deletion page-.It has met the 3-day minumum for srticles derived from an external source (which in this case is,interestingly,Wikipedia).Also 2 out of 2 voters agreed on its deletion.This is clearly not a news artcle and belongs only on Wikipedia.Also the large number of redlinks make it seem like a rather shabby article.Please check it out.PVJ 18:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Help with new article
Saw your cleanup tag on 112 year old joke fools political activists, I was wondering if you could take a gander and see if some of your concerns were appropriately addressed. I think I've put the WWWWWH in the first three paragraphs, and someone else added a link to the AP article, and moved the external links into a further reading section. I split that up, renamed it to "external links" as per the style guide, and created a references section as well. It still reads fairly disjointed (often times correcting a misperception takes a lot more text than the original), but hopefully it can be cleaned up appropriately. Your attention to the first missteps of a newbie are much appreciated! I know it probably isn't very newsworthy beyond those paying attention to the native hawaiian sovereignty issue in the United States, but I thought wikinews might be a good place to one-up the AP who didn't do enough fact checking on their article :). --JereKrischel 23:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Greatly improved. ;-) I'm glad you didn't find my cleanup tag offputting, it's always good to see people take what might seem like criticism and treat it as a challenge. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi Brian,you can e-mail Mr.Shyam Somanadh,Project Manager, Web Operations,CNN-IBN at email@example.com As for attributions and linkback-we cite sources and provide external links anyway so it shouldn't be much of a problem right?Yes,the AP article was probably not covered by their permission-I realised that only as I was adding the sources template (after creating the article),so I thought I'd just let someone else look into it.However,they might be having the reuse rights for AP material-I forgot to enquire about it-could you please ask them about that?According to the terms displayed on the website we may alter their material after obtaining consent.I feel that duplication of their artilcles may be a good idea since there are few India or rather South-Asia related articles on Wikinews and the number of Indian editors here is also low,duplicating CNN-IBN articles may be a time-saving measure.Nontheless,I request you to look into the matter yourself.PVJ 06:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I have exchanged emails with Mr Somanadh, and to be honest I got the impression he knows less about copyright law than I do - and I don't know a lot. I have raised this issue on the water cooler, and input from others can be solicited there. However, I'd actually advise opting for the simple option here. Namely, use CNN-IBN as a source, but write the story in your own words so we avoid attribution nightmares. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Your blocks of Neutralizer and DragonFire1024
- Brian, I don't think you should ever assume that a reason for a block is apparent unless you provide diffs of the offending edits combined with an explanation. If you look on WN:ALERT (before it was cleared), you will see that the blocks that receive little and focused discussion are the ones where the administrator that handed out the block posted diffs and gave a short explanation. Imho, blocking without providing this information is counterproductive. Sending me now to Neutralizer's recent contributions as a justification for your block is mildly offensive. At least you could have provided a timeframe in which the offending edits happened. (Using times of blocks as reference points is utterly useless given the recent clutter in the blocklog.) Please note that I do not dispute the block (how could I as I still don't know what the reason was) and that I did not support Neutralizers attempt to get you blocked. I do sympathise with Neutralizer's request for a reason for the block, and as others have pointed out on the alert page, it would be quite helpful to have some diffs and an explanation to clear this up. Your behaviour of resisting to give a clear explanation for the block is undermining any educational value of the block, and I take issue with that.
- While I don't agree with Neutralizer's effort to get you blocked, I am bewildered that you do not seem to understand his frustration about your apparent unwillingness to provide a clear reason for the block. Anyone who is blocked deserves a clear explanation. --vonbergm 22:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for welcoming me
Hi Brianmc. I appreciate the rapid welcome, but I actually haven't made any non-userspace edits to Wikinews yet. You should probably give users a bit of time first so that the "thanks for your contributions" part of the welcome template makes sense. You don't want to thank a vandal, do you? Mdd4696 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Brian, i have a technical question. I posted an article dated May 5,2006 on Darfur. It has a category " Africa". When i click on Africa under Region, this aricle comes as dated May 7,2006. Why is it so ? I will appreciate if you let me know the reason so that i understand categorisation better. Indrajitneogi 12:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- Dunno, I've raised this on the water cooler to see if anyone else has an idea. A stab-in-the-dark guess would be that Portal:Africa wasn't accessed until the 7th. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I posted an article on Thailand some time back, later on, i realised you are writing on Thailand all along, and the recent political developement is nicely followed by you. Please check the article, and do the necessary alterations, if you feel like.
Since you are also an administrator, can't we work out a strategy so that news from all the regions are well covered in a systematic way, so that we don't miss out on any thing major. Right now, i think articles are written more randomly. Also, i think lot more work can be done on categorisation so that old news can be retieved in a more organised way, and we can create a nice library of events, as they progress.
Calling for Brian McNeil's resignation
I wanted to advise I have just placed this edit ;
- So, Brian, you are approving of this type of language "This is the last time I'm going to tell you, Neutralizer, so listen up:"? If that's the case I'd like to see your resignation on the Admin. page forthwith! Your comments above are biased and personal as well as insulting to the letter and spirit of WN:E. I am calling for your resignation, Brian McNeil. Neutralizer 21:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is my talk page, and I'm sure you've seen the block I asked for and received so I could freely express my opinion in an edit summary. You have exhaused my patience and I will take it before ArbCom to have you blocked for editing outside Main namespace and associated talk. I am sick and tired of checking recent changes and seeing you frothing at the mouth over some trivial disagreement because you are incapable of collaborating, which — unfortunately — seems to be the point of a wiki that missed you by a mile. This isn't Usenet where you can dive off tangentially as you try and flame someone into oblivion, it is a place where there is a goal, and we're all supposed to work towards it. That doesn't mean shoving your opinion or pet conspiracy theories onto our readers, nor does it mean demanding that we implement a news blackout on information originating from the current US Administration.
- Get with the programme or get out.Brian McNeil / talk 22:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's you who must get with the project or get out. Here are the most recent contributors who have been chased away    . If you really care about the project, read the exit edits of these good people and then face the reality of who is really flaming people off the site. Wake up and smell the coffee; none of these good contributors blamed me for flaming them off the site. While you are blocked maybe you can contact these 5 people and see what you can do to get them to come back here; at least that would be my suggestion for some constructive work instead of planning some kind of additional nipping at my heels. Neutralizer 04:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- You help create the hostile enviroment where people are curt with new contributors. It isn't pleasant to look in recent changes and see constant bitching and whining all over policy and project pages. Your trolling for a RfDA on WN:ALERT is just what I have come to expect from you, you waste no time taking every controversial situation and trying to divide the community into warring factions. I am utterly sick of it, it is disruptive and a significant contributing factor in the cases you cite above. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked...
You have been blocked for an inappropriate edit summary on WN:ALERT -- specifically the bit that said, "Neutralizer, go fuck yourself". You understand that this kind of language is no appropriate and might constitute a personall attack. --Chiacomo (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- My choice, not a personal attack, just an anatomically impossible suggestion. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I have extended the block to 24 hours, another administrator may choose to shorten it if appropriate. The language chosen was offensive (you could of at least censored it) and was inappropriate - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Next time remember that blocks should be concurrent, not consecutive. What you imposed totalled my block time to over 30 hours for four words. Not only that, if you check the log you'll see this was my first offence. Thus I'd contend that there was insufficient basis for such a long block. Had someone else applied the same sanctions to Neutralizer you'd probably be contending the block, or had my comment been directed at MrMiscellaneous you would not have applied the same block. Now, one last thing... Please go and read the content of the edit I attached an offensive edit summary to. I think the only person who has actually read that and considered it is Chiacomo. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Buncha date categories
- Cute, but I think my mainly keyboard entry method is just a bit faster. Someday I'll get it together enough to run a bot for things like that, it only needs to keep about a week or so ahead to allow for prepared stories. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
If you've not seen this you should try it, I was reminded of it when I saw this edit in RC. It was bolded as the page was on my watch list - because I welcomed the user. So, who's this Gumboyaya guy, why, I welcomed him too, and he took an interest in spoken wikinews - with Brian N.Z. first to comment on it. Even big bad MrMiscellaneous gave some encouraging words. Now, if you follow the same sort of random links as those through other parts of the wiki there is a picture of administrators encouraging people to contribute.
One "lunatic-fringe" contributor is putting forth a conspiracy theory that people, including some of those involved in the above random sample, are out to destroy wikinews. I think it's nonsense, and that said "lunatic-fringe" is more destructive than any cherry-picked set of edits he can concoct.
I'm also tired of dealing with people who would prove my point so eloquently by demanding I resign adminship and abandon the project for four words. The above set of links are far more representative of the average administrator edit than the distorted picture that is used to disrupt this wiki on a near-daily basis. I have asked for the latest block of Neutralizer to be listed on WN:ALERT so others can comment on it. I think it is time people said exactly how sick they were of him demanding the entire admin corps "jump to it" and "block fred", "block wilma", "revert barney's edits", and "tell bam bam what he said made me think he was going to club me". --Brian McNeil / talk 22:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
There is no requirement under Wikinews:Blocking policy to list a block on WN:ALERT. I generally only do it if I think the block will be controversial, or if I want other admins to review the block. In this case it was pretty clear cut, and I thought it best for the problem to just dissapear for 7 days, rather than bring it to everyones attention. If you think there have been further violations on his talk page, feel free to extend his block - I doubt that anyone will disagree. - Borofkin 23:53, 16 May 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 12:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
No, there wasn't any original reporting there. I was using articles from Polish Wikinews and in small part news from a Polish website.
I have marked copyvio on Wikinews:Don't disrupt Wikinews to illustrate a point. Wikipedia articles are released under the GNU Free Document License -- content cannot be copied verbatim from Wikipedia as its license is incompatible with CC-BY. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)