User talk:Dan100/4

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
Talk page archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Mar 5 2005
Apr 5 2005
Apr 3 2005
May 9 2005
Jun 8 2005
Jun 30 2005
Jun 28 2005
Jul 20 2005
Jul 18 2005
Apr 3 2006
Apr 4 2006
Mar 7 2007

Contents

The many changes...[edit]

I'm not sure if I will be able to correctly revert them, but I'll give it a shot. I wish you would have read the section regarding the dev stories above, where at least two contributors stated they were opposed to making dev DPL. (versus one who was in favour, so obviously no consensus) - Amgine/talk 28 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)

Actually there were more than three users who supported it. NGerda June 28, 2005 20:23 (UTC)
I'm hoping I got the changes you'd made to the documentation, but I'm not sure if I did. - Amgine/talk 28 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

Mediawiki:Nogomatch[edit]

While I personally like this change, this was specifically not implemented after previous discussions to avoid orphan pages and to make links available to other editors via the Template:Developing stories. - Amgine/talk 28 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Actually, you were improving the 1.5 default version of that... so I'm reverting myself. - Amgine/talk 28 June 2005 20:38 (UTC)

DPL listing by day[edit]

The reason I list the DPLs by days is because a) it gets rid of Template:Develop showing up in the results, b) since articles are ordered by category addition, sorting by date organizes stories chronologically no matter what, and c) people wanted the list to still be ordered by date. -- NGerda June 29, 2005 19:19 (UTC)

Number of edits involved[edit]

You're trying to show that your systems is "better" - which if it were a monolithic, integrated system from article creation (that is, an internal "template" the software required with the creation of every article) onward it would be. The software does not actually work that way. Instead the system you wish to use requires exactly the same number of edits while in the development stages, and occasionally more.

This would not, in my opinion, prevent it from being implemented - a zero net change in effort is not a problem. However, because there is no way to implement it as a monolithic integrated system it raises significant barriers to manual users, and increases the complexity for users from other Wikimedia projects and who have never worked with a wiki previously.

There is no way you can reasonably claim this system is simpler than creating a link and typing an article. This method inclusion on Wikinews has always been, and must continue to be, fully embraced. The DPL system as it is currently implemented does not do so.

Furthermore, both NGerda and yourself have said to me, and I have logged, that users who do not follow the system will never get published. This exclusionary attitude is exemplified in this system. It is not in line with the precepts of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikinews, or even the concepts of wiki.

Now, as to the very specific question of why I am reverting the blanking of the manual list: The DPL should not be on the main page at all - it is a proposal which is contested and which does not have consensus. To avoid an edit war I and other editors are not simply removing it to, as you said in your edit summary "(let's use both systems)" for a while to see how it works. From the mood of the community I think I can say this is also the only way the system would ever be allowed - having both a manual and an automated listing. And it shows up one of the weaknesses of the system which I had previously mentioned; articles will be showing up twice.

If an author specifically chooses not to use the autmated system - and as far as I can tell no one besides yourself has done so, though you've confused two long-time contributors with the setup - hir choice of listing method should be respected. For example, I initiated the Fiji girls story. I do not wish to use the DPL system. - Amgine/talk 29 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)

Furthermore, both NGerda and yourself have said to me, and I have logged, that users who do not follow the system will never get published. This exclusionary attitude is exemplified in this system. It is not in line with the precepts of the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikinews, or even the concepts of wiki. - If you can't be bothered to quote me in full and in context, I can't be bothered to reply.
For example, I initiated the Fiji girls story. I do not wish to use the DPL system. - "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here". Oh and, "don't claim ownership". Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Reason for reverting newarticle text change[edit]

Change implements a disputed, non-consensus process. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 17:09 (UTC)

I support the new system Dan100 was putting in, actually. I was rather hoping to have a go at it for a week or so, and see what we can learn from that set-up. I understand there's a dispute, but I really think that, Amgine, you're the only one strongly pushing for the status quo. -- IlyaHaykinson 30 June 2005 17:18 (UTC)
I will happily stop reverting changes once there is consensus to implement it. I believe at the moment there are at least an equal number of persons opposed as in favour, which would not resolve to consensus. I haven't looked today, but I have not seen a single person use the new system other than those in favour of it, which I think is the telling point. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 17:22 (UTC)
Well, actually {{develop}} and {{publish}} has been used in recent new articles by McCart42, Chiacomo, Stevertigo, Kevin Baas, Dcabrilo, Eloquence, and Sblive. I think that qualifies as support. -- IlyaHaykinson 30 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)
Uhm, since those templates were not necessarily added *by* those users, I think you may need to reasses. SteveVertigo did not even use the date template. You'll find that Chicacomo, Kevin_Baas, McCart42, Dan100, and NGerda have used the templates - and I have also used {{publish}} too. The problem is the requirement to use them in order to be listed in the developing stories template. The concept I am in favour of. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 18:11 (UTC)
Also, here is a classic example of using the templates and categories to remove an article from the main page. An article begun by User:Uncle G which is abandoned and is reasonably put up for deletion, but would now be completely invisible except from Dr if it were not manually on the Developing stories template. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 18:20 (UTC)
Erm, no, it wouldn't be 'invisible'. Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 21:18 (UTC)
Of those edits listed above only Stevertigo, Eloquence, Sblive actually used the {{develop} tag the rest had it added by someone else or only used the now required and unopposed {{publish}} tag. --Cspurrier 30 June 2005 18:28 (UTC)

Well, actually, I think you guys are incorrect. All the users I mentioned had put the templates in themselves. If you look at the first revisions of the McCart42, Chiacomo, and Kevin Baas's articles you will see they show the develop. If you look at the fourth revision of the Dcabrilo article you'll see the publish tag — and it's the fourth revision without anyone else making changes since the start of the article. I believe that seven people (plus myself, plus Dan100, plus NGerda, whom I didn't mention) constitute agreement on using this feature. -- IlyaHaykinson 30 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)

Please explain "this feature"? I do not dispute using publish. I only dispute using DPL for the developing stories template. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 20:49 (UTC)
Sorry, It looks like I was wrong everyone on your list but Dcabrilo, used the the dev tag at some point. My other issue with the new text is " but be sure to add {{publish}} to your article if you want it published at once.", I think it is a very bad idea to encourage user to publish thier stories with out it spending time on the Dev page first. --Cspurrier 30 June 2005 20:54 (UTC)

Many experienced users publish right away and there's never been any way (or even any discouragement) to prevent people people doing this before now. Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 21:09 (UTC)

For the experienced users publishing right away is fine, and they know how to do it. I just want to avoid having newbies making junk stories / press releases published as soon as they submit it. I do not think direct publishing needs to be discouraged just not encouraged. --Cspurrier 30 June 2005 21:17 (UTC)

Clare also uses this system.

So let's be clear, using the new system are:

  1. Me
  2. NGerda
  3. McCart42
  4. Dcabrilo
  5. Stevertigo
  6. SBlive
  7. Chiacomo
  8. Clare
  9. KevinBaas
  10. Ilya
  11. Eloquence

Against this is: Amgine, and possibly Cspurrier (who did not rv my newarticletext because he didn't like it, but because my original version was broken, and he actually tried to fix it.)

Hmmm.

And let's be clear a bit more: my newsarticletext only suggests that a user can use developing if they want, but they should be sure to use publish if they want to publish. What, exactly, is wrong with that?

I'm pretty tired of Amgine's bullying, but I do not submit to bullies. Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 20:57 (UTC)

Amgine, I propose that we change our model of tracking new articles to using the Newpages list to ensure that every article has at least some state on it — either publish or develop (or something else that comes along). That shouldn't be overly difficult. I am willing to not push for Developing Stories having a DPL if I can get you to agree to this in principle — in the meanwhile, we will encourage the process with newarticletext that refers to using the tags, optionally, until such time as new article creation is more intelligent and uses technology (i.e. a custom-developed plugin or extension to mediawiki). Is that something you can be ok with? -- IlyaHaykinson 30 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)

We don't use article stages.
In principle, I do not have a problem with that, and I just thought of a possible solution as well. Articles which are notcategory=Publish. <hits self for not thinking of this earlier.> - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Who said anything about article stages?! Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)

Uhm, stage 1 = developing, stage 2 = published... if you *require* the category, you're creating stages. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)

Lol, and how is this different to listing on Developing stories before 'publishing' - which is what we've always done? Stories have always been listed on one or both. Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)

No, the DS was to get more people to look at the articles. It was not a requirement (although workspace was...) - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 21:28 (UTC)

No-one is 'requiring' an article to have the developing tag on it anymore than anyone ever required a story to be on the old developing stories list. Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Check it out![edit]

Enjoy! -- NGerda June 30, 2005 21:27 (UTC) [1]

Thanks Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 21:32 (UTC)

Ilya and I may have come up with a technical solution[edit]

which will answer my concerns about simplicity and inclusivity. He will be working on this tonight. I am in the process of writing up the concept for the water cooler. - Amgine/talk 30 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)

linking to previous wikinews story[edit]

I kind of like the way the older Wikinews story: US helicopter with 17 on board believed to have been shot down in Afghanistan is linked to by the newer story: Bodies found at crash site of US helicopter in Afghanistan. It gets rid of the need to use the Related news section. I don't think it highlights the fact that Wikinews does have a previous story on the subject... so I will add the Related news section. -Edbrown05 30 June 2005 22:31 (UTC)

Trouble is, a reader may be fooled into clicking the story twice to see the same article. Once by clicking in the text, and a second time by clicking in the Related news section. I believe this a policy issue so the treatment is uniform? -Edbrown05 30 June 2005 22:40 (UTC)

I don't think there's any policy on this, or at least I'm not aware of any. I prefer linking from the article text - it's just more natural, more net-standard. Dan100 (Talk) 1 July 2005 08:20 (UTC)

Actually I don't think they'd go to the same story twice, because if they clicked the first link they'd probably see the title, so not bother clicking the 'Related story' bit. So I don't think it's a problem to do both. Dan100 (Talk) 1 July 2005 08:21 (UTC)

Your essey on Amgine[edit]

Dan100, with all due respect (and I mean it), what were you thinking when you wrote your complaints about other contributor?

Don't get me wrong - I am not on anyone's side, and the whole DPL thing was blown way out of proportion for me to even care. But, did it all really have to go on water cooler like that? It's a disagreement between prolific contributors who are all intelligent people, so deal among yourselves in a civilized manner. Writing complaints on water cooler over technical issues (I emphasize technical - because honestly, is it that important on big scale of things?) will not accomplish anything at all, but further contribute to your fight.

It all looks very immature. Just consider that we have had probably record number of articles in the last week, and for some of our best contributors to fight like that!?

Do what you want, but if I were in your shoes, I would immediately move your criticism over to Amgine's talk page. It will give him something to think about for sure.

Please take all of this as coming from an "optimist" and in best faith. --Dcabrilo 1 July 2005 13:15 (UTC)

Amgine is behaving very poorly, and I want everyone to see that. He's really pissed me off, to be blunt! Dan100 (Talk) 1 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
That will accomplish fuck all and cause trouble, and you know it. It would be non of my business if I were not a Wikinewsie as well. I have to "exist" within the community. So do you... --Dcabrilo 1 July 2005 13:22 (UTC)

I'm not seeking to accomplish anything - I'm just doing what I've said. Nor do I view this as a popularity contest. Amgine is trying to bully several editors, and I will not take it lying down. Dan100 (Talk) 1 July 2005 13:25 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: yes, this is a full-on, very public, attack on Amgine, because he has been behaving like a dictator. I will not be very popular for having done it, and I knew that when I posted it. I simply put fighting bullies before my own personal popularity. Dan100 (Talk) 1 July 2005 13:30 (UTC)

Big favour[edit]

Could you follow this link and tell if you see a sorry message or if the site works fine, thanks: [2]CGorman (Talk) July 2, 2005 13:57 (UTC)

Sorry I responded on my own talk page. → CGorman (Talk) July 2, 2005 14:21 (UTC)
Thanks for the screenshot, I really hate to ask you but could you do me a big favour; a screenshot of any (or all!) of the list of restaurants in the following towns, the most important are in bold:
County Wicklow: Bray, Arklow, Greystones
County Wexford: Enniscorthy - Gorey - New Ross - Wexford
County Waterford: Dungarvan - Lismore - Tramore - Waterford
County Tipperary: Carrick-on-Suir - Cashel - Clonmel - Nenagh - Roscrea - Thurles
County Sligo: Sligo
County Mayo: Ballina - Castlebar - Westport
County Offaly: Tullamore - Birr
County Meath: Ashbourne - Athboy - Kells - Navan - Trim
Its alright if you can't do it... but I really would appreciate even if you could send one. → CGorman (Talk) July 2, 2005 14:21 (UTC)
Oh and im sticking with firefox ... can't stand those ads! → CGorman (Talk) July 2, 2005 14:22 (UTC)
I know its a crazy request, please don't ask why (yet, all will be revealed later in the summer)! → CGorman (Talk) July 2, 2005 14:23 (UTC)
I've gotta go off for two hours to do a bit of fundraising for my club, will be back around six. → CGorman (Talk) July 2, 2005 14:43 (UTC)
Thank you so much Dan! They are perfect! Im going to go down to a web cafe and email the rest to myself someday when I get the chance. Thanks again. → CGorman (Talk) July 2, 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Commons deletion[edit]

I just wanted you to know that one of "your" images was to be deleted on Commons. I presume you made the "neutral globe" so you can put {{PD-self}} on it, as you can do on all images you created. Faager - «?» 2 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Merging[edit]

I'd like to merge Wikinews:Wikinews needs you! and Wikinews:Introduction to Wikinews. Except for the "What we need from you!" part, the Wikinews needs you! page seems to present largely the same information. I think a single, properly structured page would be more useful. Any objections from your part to trying this?--Eloquence 3 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Re; British Prime Minister confirms authenticity of Downing Street memo Is speedy deletion instantaneous? I see where earlier today you indicated you were "speedying" the article on its discussion page. I can't find the article on the speedy deletion list and it seems to be blank now; please advise if you know; thanks. Paulrevere2005 3 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Yeah, speedying means being deleted at once. It's only because it had no content - feel free to write a proper article under the same headline. Dan100 (Talk) 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response,Dan. Paulrevere2005 3 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

Before you decide to pull the trigger again, some advice[edit]

Hello. In the future, you may want to consider avoiding the temptation of using the block user option on an individual with whom you are engaged in a mutual revert war. Beside looking petty to onlookers, it harms our sense of community. In addition, it made you look dictatorial - a fault you have cited in at least one other WN contributor. I suggest that in the future, when you are involved in a mutual revert dispute, you ask a fellow WN admin to block the other combatant. This shows that you are not being a lone vigilante, unilaterally deciding which people who disagree with your POV are not invited to participate in this project. It also may protect you from being nominated for de-adminship for improper use of admin powers. -- Davodd | Talk 4 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

I've not blocked anyone - ? Dan100 (Talk) 4 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)
Oh, you mean Amgine a few days ago. The 3RR is clear: you break it, you get blocked. If you disagree with that policy, raise the issue on the appropiate talk page. Dan100 (Talk) 4 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

Merging[edit]

I'd like to merge Wikinews:Wikinews needs you! and Wikinews:Introduction to Wikinews. Except for the "What we need from you!" part, the Wikinews needs you! page seems to present largely the same information. I think a single, properly structured page would be more useful. Any objections from your part to trying this?--Eloquence 3 July 2005 16:20 (UTC)

Speedy deletion[edit]

Re; British Prime Minister confirms authenticity of Downing Street memo Is speedy deletion instantaneous? I see where earlier today you indicated you were "speedying" the article on its discussion page. I can't find the article on the speedy deletion list and it seems to be blank now; please advise if you know; thanks. Paulrevere2005 3 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

Yeah, speedying means being deleted at once. It's only because it had no content - feel free to write a proper article under the same headline. Dan100 (Talk) 3 July 2005 21:58 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick response,Dan. Paulrevere2005 3 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

Before you decide to pull the trigger again, some advice[edit]

Hello. In the future, you may want to consider avoiding the temptation of using the block user option on an individual with whom you are engaged in a mutual revert war. Beside looking petty to onlookers, it harms our sense of community. In addition, it made you look dictatorial - a fault you have cited in at least one other WN contributor. I suggest that in the future, when you are involved in a mutual revert dispute, you ask a fellow WN admin to block the other combatant. This shows that you are not being a lone vigilante, unilaterally deciding which people who disagree with your POV are not invited to participate in this project. It also may protect you from being nominated for de-adminship for improper use of admin powers. -- Davodd | Talk 4 July 2005 11:41 (UTC)

I've not blocked anyone - ? Dan100 (Talk) 4 July 2005 11:42 (UTC)
Oh, you mean Amgine a few days ago. The 3RR is clear: you break it, you get blocked. If you disagree with that policy, raise the issue on the appropiate talk page. Dan100 (Talk) 4 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)
I am sorry for not being clear. Yes, I am referring to this matter. I do believe this is the appropriate talk page for this discussion. It is fairly established practice among the various Wikimedia projects that when an administrator is personally involved in a dispute she or he should not be the one to pull the trigger to block the individual with whom she or he is quarreling. A third party admin should be called in to do the block to avoid any impropriety or appearance of impropriety. -- Davodd | Talk 4 July 2005 12:00 (UTC)

OK. BTW what gives with the veiled threats of de-sysopping? Are you trying to threaten me? Not very helpful. Dan100 (Talk) 4 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)

I don't give veiled threats. Being a stereotypical American, I am much too blunt for that. I would just come out and say something like, "Hey bucko, next time you abuse your admin powers by blocking someone you are fighting with, I will nominate you for de-adminship. So cool it." But, in the years I have been an admin I have neither done that nor blocked anyone on any of the Wikimedia projects. I prefer to talk things out rather than make hasty judgments that ultimately make me look foolish and do more harm to the community than good. ;-) -- Davodd | Talk 4 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

Template:Copyvio[edit]

In your many improvements to the Template:Copyvio, it seems we now have an unintended problem. Replacing the "url" with "1" in the code did two things:

  1. Now instead of typing "url=http..." we have to type "1=http..." Somehow I do not think this is what you intended.
  2. At least 2 places that give instructions on using the Copyvio template, still say to type "url=http..."

-- Davodd | Talk 4 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

Now instead of typing "url=http..." we have to type "1=http..." - no you don't. Just type the URL alone. I'll fix the instructions. Dan100 (Talk) 4 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

That doesn't work - the url will not print. It just looks like this: [3] -- Davodd | Talk 4 July 2005 12:53 (UTC)

It seems to be tripping up over the ? mark - it renders correctly if that's taken out. Guess I'd better rv the template. Dan100 (Talk) 4 July 2005 14:35 (UTC)

It's not the question mark, it's the '='s in the URL that's causing the problems. Dan100 (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that; I was at a loss. Good thing you are here to figure it out. The template does look much better with your improvements, BTW. -- Davodd | Talk 4 July 2005 19:09 (UTC)

Somalia story[edit]

Hi Dan I've been fiddling with this on the edges but it's my press day. It should be one story - the suspension of aid happened yesterday (the date was in non-US order) and this needs to be put with the insecurity of 900,000 people. It's really important but it needs sewing together, which no other source has done yet as far as I've seen. ClareWhite 5 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)

It's against Wikinews policy - we have seperate articles on seperate events. You can wikilink between them, of course, but the these two events aren't actually connected - only co-incidental. Dan100 (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:13 (UTC)
Which I've now done. Dan100 (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:24 (UTC)
Really? I would have thought they are pretty closely linked (no aid > 900,000 could starve). Can we only link them when other publications do, then? Hm. ClareWhite 5 July 2005 12:27 (UTC)

No, you mis-understand. Take a look at the hijacking story as it is now is to see what I mean. Dan100 (Talk) 5 July 2005 12:32 (UTC)

See what you mean now, done well. Yep, I'm feeling immensely bad about leaving notes instead of Wiki-ing but that's what happens when you sneak onto Wikinews when you should be doing something else... Think that the food aid suspension could become a lead now to replace this story. Off to get my train now, excuses excuses :) ClareWhite 5 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

That's alright :-). I was just a bit grumpy cos I thought I'd seperated out a story only to have to delete it because it was so old! Dan100 (Talk) 5 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Audio Wikinews[edit]

Excellent, Dan... I may edit a bit more later for clarity. --Chiacomo (talk) 5 July 2005 15:47 (UTC)

Ouch[edit]

I should have read and known that(what we don't do).Thanks for the "heads up". Paulrevere2005 5 July 2005 16:10 (UTC)

wow - FAST work!![edit]

Yay!!!

explosions[edit]

I'm trying to send you a photo now it's not very good, just crowds on Euston Road and Euston is cordoned off

  • Good job on that story.-- Davodd | Talk 7 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

I'll try but the phone network is going down. ClareWhite 7 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

That 'photo is being used by the BBC now - PhilHibbs 7 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that commons:Image:Euston cordoned off 070705.jpg has been listed for possible deletion by Commons folks — since you uploaded it, you might want to add whatever info they need to prevent that. -- IlyaHaykinson 7 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)

22000[edit]

Sounds good - whats a typical day like? → CGorman (Talk) 8 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

A bit less :-). You can see the numbers here. Dan100 (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

News... mmm thats a stupid heading[edit]

Hey Dan, just checking to see how wikinews has been percieved over the last few days. A google news search shows the Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and Scotsman all give us a mention. Scoop.co.nz actually has used our story in their own content and the bloggers... well they have been unbelieveably nice - theres literally dozens of blogs sending people here. Oh and our daily alexa rank has jumped to 7,993 - the highest ever; over 1,000 better than our previous highest. → CGorman (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Archiving of Water cooler/technical[edit]

You described this edit to Wikinews:Water cooler/technical as "archiving", but where did you put the stuff you removed? - dcljr 9 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

London Tube original reporting[edit]

Outstanding job on that article! -- Davodd | Talk 9 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Seconded.  :) -- NGerda July 9, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

Bang Bang Bang[edit]

Awesome job on this article! The comprehensiveness is great and I'm really happy to see those notes :) Again, awesome job. --RossKoepke 9 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Blog[edit]

I've started writing at my blog again! Could'nt resist. → CGorman (Talk) 21:28, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Cool :-) Dan100 (Talk) 08:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Leeds search[edit]

A vote from me to move London bombing: Police search houses in Leeds to 1st lead. I don't have the "Breaking news?" image infor in theis computer. -Edbrown05 16:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Things are actually moving very fast, and that one is a bit out-of-date - I'm trying to sort out what's going on, then will write an article... Dan100 (Talk) 16:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha, in the meantime I'll move it. Notes awareness here beyond that hurricane story. -Edbrown05 16:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol, I was thinking the hurricane stories showed our awareness beyond London ;-) Dan100 (Talk) 17:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks[edit]

Like the title says, thanks dude. If it carries on like this, people will think i'm paying you :-D

By the way, what's the policy on Wikinews for use of images from the MoD site at www.news.mod.uk? The troop reduction article could do with a pic' of John Reid and a random pic' of British soldiers roaming Iraq. Take care SoLando 21:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

SoLando, you may upload pictures from that web site as it is © Crown copyright 2004. You may upload them to Wikinews and attach the {{Crown copyright}} tag to it. Have fun! -- NGerda 21:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

I nominated a couple articles you worked on... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Competitions#5._News_.28both_summary_and_original_reporting.29 -- Davodd | Talk 07:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Dan100 (Talk) 07:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

changing my username[edit]

I'm not sure what the specific relationship is between you, Wikinews and Wikipedia, but I've been contributing on and off to Wikipedia with the same username since 2003. No one has complained about it until now.

wow - FAST work!![edit]

Yay!!!

explosions[edit]

I'm trying to send you a photo now it's not very good, just crowds on Euston Road and Euston is cordoned off

  • Good job on that story.-- Davodd | Talk 7 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

I'll try but the phone network is going down. ClareWhite 7 July 2005 09:49 (UTC)

That 'photo is being used by the BBC now - PhilHibbs 7 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that commons:Image:Euston cordoned off 070705.jpg has been listed for possible deletion by Commons folks — since you uploaded it, you might want to add whatever info they need to prevent that. -- IlyaHaykinson 7 July 2005 13:07 (UTC)

22000[edit]

Sounds good - whats a typical day like? → CGorman (Talk) 8 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

A bit less :-). You can see the numbers here. Dan100 (Talk) 8 July 2005 14:42 (UTC)

News... mmm thats a stupid heading[edit]

Hey Dan, just checking to see how wikinews has been percieved over the last few days. A google news search shows the Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and Scotsman all give us a mention. Scoop.co.nz actually has used our story in their own content and the bloggers... well they have been unbelieveably nice - theres literally dozens of blogs sending people here. Oh and our daily alexa rank has jumped to 7,993 - the highest ever; over 1,000 better than our previous highest. → CGorman (Talk) 8 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Archiving of Water cooler/technical[edit]

You described this edit to Wikinews:Water cooler/technical as "archiving", but where did you put the stuff you removed? - dcljr 9 July 2005 04:27 (UTC)

London Tube original reporting[edit]

Outstanding job on that article! -- Davodd | Talk 9 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)

Seconded.  :) -- NGerda July 9, 2005 17:15 (UTC)

Bang Bang Bang[edit]

Awesome job on this article! The comprehensiveness is great and I'm really happy to see those notes :) Again, awesome job. --RossKoepke 9 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

Blog[edit]

I've started writing at my blog again! Could'nt resist. → CGorman (Talk) 21:28, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Cool :-) Dan100 (Talk) 08:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Leeds search[edit]

A vote from me to move London bombing: Police search houses in Leeds to 1st lead. I don't have the "Breaking news?" image infor in theis computer. -Edbrown05 16:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Things are actually moving very fast, and that one is a bit out-of-date - I'm trying to sort out what's going on, then will write an article... Dan100 (Talk) 16:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Gotcha, in the meantime I'll move it. Notes awareness here beyond that hurricane story. -Edbrown05 16:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Lol, I was thinking the hurricane stories showed our awareness beyond London ;-) Dan100 (Talk) 17:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks[edit]

Like the title says, thanks dude. If it carries on like this, people will think i'm paying you :-D

By the way, what's the policy on Wikinews for use of images from the MoD site at www.news.mod.uk? The troop reduction article could do with a pic' of John Reid and a random pic' of British soldiers roaming Iraq. Take care SoLando 21:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

SoLando, you may upload pictures from that web site as it is © Crown copyright 2004. You may upload them to Wikinews and attach the {{Crown copyright}} tag to it. Have fun! -- NGerda 21:03, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. It was difficult to find an image to use as a lot of the pictures were very Steven Spielberg (small children interested in soldiers guns. Hand over of sweets ensuing :-D) SoLando 17:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Nomination[edit]

I nominated a couple articles you worked on... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania:Competitions#5._News_.28both_summary_and_original_reporting.29 -- Davodd | Talk 07:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Dan100 (Talk) 07:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Speedying blank articles[edit]

While I agree with deleting articles if they aren't developed after a while, I would appreciate if you would give them 1 day before wiping them off the face of the earth. Thanks, NGerda 07:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

They can be speedied at once. I warned everyone in the IRC channel last night that this was my intention. Dan100 (Talk) 09:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Dan, it is appropriate to allow at least one day for an article to be developed. If it isn't developed, we can delete it. These are legitimate submissions, and development takes time. -- NGerda 09:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

it is appropriate to allow at least one day for an article to be developed - when it's blank, they can be deleted straight away. Dan100 (Talk) 12:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Welcomittee[edit]

You probably deleted the story I added (with no time to develop) about the chain of Tube events. That was fair enough, I was suffering from bomb fever after an extended morning of constant helicopters and sirens overhead, oh it's fun here... Anyway, I thought it might be nice to serve on the Welcomittee, not for technical help (obviously) but I can help people with writing news. Do I need to go through an approval process or just sign up? ClareWhite 12:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. We were spammed with some 30 blank articles yesterday, mainly from one user who was, frankly, taking the piss! I'm sorry if one of your articles got caught - but it really is an idea to write something others can then build on. You might want to take a look at London Tube bombs went 'bang bang bang, very close together' though, which does cover the timeline pretty well. Dan100 (Talk) 12:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Anyway, the welcommittee is completely ad hoc. You don't even need to sign up (I don't think I have), just get stuck in helping anyone you want to! Dan100 (Talk) 12:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
No I meant it! I meant to find it late to delete it but it had gone... I'm inclined to agree with you about blank articles, it struck me yesterday that it was good that there were so many new articles in development but they should have at least a sentence otherwise we may as well be Google news. I was, as I say, suffering from siege fever :) maybe it is worth adding a line to the development template saying 'You must summarise the story with at least one sentence and supply at least one source, otherwise it may be deleted immediately'. Often thinking of a quick summary sentence is a good way of starting a story so it would get people writing straight off. Sorry, i seem to have cut into the above thread there... ClareWhite 12:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Several of us did actually ask the person making the articles on their talk page to write something... but he ignored us :-( Dan100 (Talk) 12:43, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikinews link in current events template[edit]

I didn't mean to undermine your proposal, I just wanted to state my opinion. Of today's events in Current events, as of right now, only 5 of 10 of them have stories at Wikinews. In the Current events category, it's the same, from what I can tell. I do think that using the extra Wikinews link will draw people to contribute the article if it doesn't exist already, but the important thing is that it must add value to WP, not to WN; we're the ones changing their template, after all. And if only half of the WP articles marked with the Current template actually have information at WN, we will be forcing their readers to sift through our site for information that might not even be here. Eventually, I think the time will come that we will have a better ratio of current events covered, but let's wait until then to impose upon them to add WN links to the Current template. At that point I don't think they will be able to argue with us that nearly every current event they have is covered on WN, and the link will be useful to BOTH parties. - McCart42 (talk) 22:26, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Template replacement[edit]

Hi,

can you explain what this edit was about?--Eloquence 14:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out how to stop a three month old article appearing as one of "most recent" pieces of original reporting on the Main Page, yet still remain in the OR category. I executed half an idea, before realising that it wasn't going to work. Dan100 (Talk) 16:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
You probably now by know, but you can use Category:Archived for this.--Eloquence 00:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't, but should've figured it out. Thanks :-) Dan100 (Talk) 21:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

newspapers[edit]

Have you been following the stories about Wikinews on some other page which I can't find right now? The green-eyed monster is very much evident from our more 'professional' news competitors, hehe :) ClareWhite 15:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You have blocked the ip address of South African Internet Exchange's Proxy[edit]

That means you are now preventing all south africans from contributing to wikinews. This means you are RACIST!!!

WTF?! Anyway - you're blocked. Bye! Dan100 (Talk) 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This vandal has been here before [4], according to him "I am against free speech." and "I plan on starting a revolution on Wikinews, so I can control all the news.". Next time you get a vandal like this you may want to get someone else to do the block for you. I was going to block him yesterday but I forgot, sorry . --Cspurrier 21:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Bones of a Mammoth possibly found in Silicon Valley[edit]

Should this story be published? It seems a bit too much like a stub to me.

Hello, whoever you are... anyway, in my opinion it's better to publish a story when a) it reads well and b) it has the who/where/what/how, than just to leave it festering in Developing.
The thing people don't seem to appreciate is that it's very rare for other editors to start collaborating. It only happens when it's *big* news, or there's two people on here who share interests. What usually happens is that short stories end up rotting on Developing days after it was actually "news"... Dan100 (Talk) 22:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this was me. Goodgerster

Template replacement[edit]

Hi,

can you explain what this edit was about?--Eloquence 14:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out how to stop a three month old article appearing as one of "most recent" pieces of original reporting on the Main Page, yet still remain in the OR category. I executed half an idea, before realising that it wasn't going to work. Dan100 (Talk) 16:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
You probably now by know, but you can use Category:Archived for this.--Eloquence 00:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't, but should've figured it out. Thanks :-) Dan100 (Talk) 21:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

newspapers[edit]

Have you been following the stories about Wikinews on some other page which I can't find right now? The green-eyed monster is very much evident from our more 'professional' news competitors, hehe :) ClareWhite 15:55, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

You have blocked the ip address of South African Internet Exchange's Proxy[edit]

That means you are now preventing all south africans from contributing to wikinews. This means you are RACIST!!!

WTF?! Anyway - you're blocked. Bye! Dan100 (Talk) 21:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This vandal has been here before [5], according to him "I am against free speech." and "I plan on starting a revolution on Wikinews, so I can control all the news.". Next time you get a vandal like this you may want to get someone else to do the block for you. I was going to block him yesterday but I forgot, sorry . --Cspurrier 21:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Bones of a Mammoth possibly found in Silicon Valley[edit]

Should this story be published? It seems a bit too much like a stub to me.

Hello, whoever you are... anyway, in my opinion it's better to publish a story when a) it reads well and b) it has the who/where/what/how, than just to leave it festering in Developing.
The thing people don't seem to appreciate is that it's very rare for other editors to start collaborating. It only happens when it's *big* news, or there's two people on here who share interests. What usually happens is that short stories end up rotting on Developing days after it was actually "news"... Dan100 (Talk) 22:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, this was me. Goodgerster

198.54.202.*** are the IP addresses of the SAIX proxy servers.[edit]

Most South Africans connect to the Internet through these. By blocking IP addresses in this range you are preventing South Africans from contributing to Wikinews. I do not believe that it is the nature of Wikinews project to discriminate against people because of their nationality. Please take at look at this page: [6]

Please note that SAIX randomly connects it's users to different proxy for every page they visit.

I do not believe that all South Africans should be punished because of the inapropriate behaviour of one.

I trust that you will revert your blocking of SAIX's IP addresses.

Keep in mind that user who poseted this has vandalised the Wikinews Article on Wikipedia [7] and your Wikipedia user page. Even though the user claims that the block prevents all "South Africans from contributing", he has had not trouble writing these messages. Also, if the user is to create a user account they will not be affected by the block.--Cspurrier 16:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

My friend, I am well aware what those IP addresses are from SAIX, and how they operate. As Craig points out, if they blocked the whole of South Africa, you would not be here. But rest assured; I have contacted SAIX's abuse desk and we are taking action against the vandals concerned under their terms and conditions of service and abuse policy.

However, if there is any more vandalism from these IPs in the meantime, we will not hesistate to block them - it will only block that specific IP - leaving many thousands more available for use. We are not discriminating against anyone, merely protecting our website. Dan100 (Talk) 10:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

admin & those bombs[edit]

Hey there, thanks for the messages. I understood completely with you about the reporting of the buses and I'm really glad you handled it that way. We should keep the message that I sent you on record, it does show how far ahead we were and also that we are more responsible than others who might just have started whipping things up, which I think the pros would expect us to do. I don't quite remember the sequence but know that I was completely inclined to disbelieve the information myself as well, I think at one point I scrubbed it out and put 'or a car'. About the adminship, it would be nice to be nominated some time and to be able to block people if necessary but I think I need to get to know some more about the place and know more people before I could take on all the wider responsibilities, plus I don't like being rejected :) ClareWhite 09:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

category: world[edit]

I've started a discussion on the atercooler which relates to the discussion on the mainpage. Could you take a look: I think you have a better handle on it than I do and it will have a big effect on the Portal development. I think... ClareWhite 08:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Your offer[edit]

Thank you for your kind offer, don't mind your forgetting, eh, anyway every moving can be restored on MediaWiki ;-) I accept your offer gratefully, and hope there will be no necessary we repeat a same talk on another project. --Aphaia 10:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

new category[edit]

Can I create Quaker as a sub-category for Religion? If I can, I might have a pilot Portal in the making what with two major Quaker events coming up in the next month... ClareWhite 11:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why not :-) Dan100 (Talk) 11:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, how do I do it...? ClareWhite 11:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh right, um, just start putting category:Quaker on the articles. For the portal bit, you could use a DynamicPageList. When I set one up, I go to Rwanda, edit the page, copy the code, paste the text into a new page (eg "Quakers"?), then change where it says category=Rwanda to whatever I want, then save it. Dan100 (Talk) 11:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

...and am I right about Develop/Publish just referring to articles on the main page or does it need to go on everything? ie if I was to categorise something as Quaker would it just go on that page? ClareWhite 11:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

For that bit the "local idea" I've been blathering on about for the last week or two might come in handy. Part of my idea is to have a {{publish local}}, and include a category=publishlocal in the DPLs of "local" portals. That way really localised stories would go in the right place, but not on the Main Page. Mind you, I've been doing a good job of talking myself out of that recently, saying that all news deserves being presented on an equal footing on the Main Page... Dan100 (Talk) 11:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Really though it depends on what's in the DynamicPageList. If it just says (eg) category=Quaker, everything with category:Quaker on it will appear there. However, if it also has category=published in it, then only articles with both category:Quaker and category:published will appear. My idea above was basically a way to be able "publish" "local" stuff on Portals, but not have them appear on the Main Page. It's up to you what you put in... Dan100 (Talk) 11:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Burundi story[edit]

Thanks for the comment, Dan. I'm sorry you felt that the piece fell short of the wikinews NPOV policy, which of course I support. I note your additions to the opening paragraphs, and I'm pleased that Wikinews is running this story. I do, however, feel that your use of the term "bias" is an exaggeration. I feel that I stated the relevant facts fairly and proportionately and I thought it might help if I outlined my reasoning on this issue.

Although a nominal "agreement" was made between the RPA and CNC, it's clear that RPA had no choice but to accept it. It therefore seems quite accurate to say, as I did, that the CNC took the station of the air.

I think that there's an issue of consistency here, and a danger of "unwitting bias" against countries like Burundi. Imagine if our own government decided to block Wikinews for two days, or take Radio 3 off the air (having originally tried to ban the media outlet indefinitely) on the basis that they believed some news coverage to have been biased. And imagine if this formed part of a consistent pattern where people linked to the outlet had been beaten up, arrested without charge and in some cases killed. I think that we'd say, as the CPJ and Reporters Sans Frontieres have often done in the case of RPA versus the Burundian government, that this was a clear violation of international norms on press freedom.

Banning a major radio station for any period of time is an extreme measure for any government to take. That for me is the real story here, and I've merely tried to report it as I would had it happened in my own country. If "bias", real or imagined, was a legitimate reason for applying such a ban then I'd venture to suggest that half of the British media and most of the internet would be facing a ban!

Best regards,

Richard Wilson

Thanks for getting back to me Richard. (Perhaps you'd like to make an account?) It's not unprecedented for a European country to take a station off-air - France recently shut a TV station down (with justification) (we have an article about it somewhere). I'm not saying that makes it right for the CNC to have done what they did, just that it's not unprecedented.
We also can't say what we think happened, even if it's "clear". If we have someone from RPA on record as saying that, then we can quote them. Otherwise we need to stick to what we really know - which included the reasoning the CNC had presented, both for the recent ban and the older one. That's only fair to them, quite apart from it being demanded by the NPOV. As you can see, I then also added more of the RPA's views to maintain a neutral PoV.
Saying the story was "biased" was probably harsh, and I apologize for that, but it did need tweaking a bit. Dan100 (Talk) 15:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)