User talk:Deprifry/Archive4

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archive1
Archive2
Archive3

"Oh thank you love, thank you very much, look I'm sorry I forgot to mention you on my Academy award winning speech, but there were so many people to thank love all of whom were much frankly more important than you, so if your calling to complain please leave a message after the beep:"[1]

Buttons? Is there a big red one?[edit]

Brian, you really need the buttons. Seriously.

:-) Man, that guy was a real pain. He did similar yesterday too. I'm going to be put forward again in a few days as it is the anniversary of my first edit. We'll see if all the nay-sayers crawl out of the woodwork again. Incidentally, I've put myself up for Accreditation to work on the Class Action story, I think I'm going to have to resort to phoning people to get stuff on that as I cannot find anything on the outcome of the lawsuit, I just see that Amazon gor their .gr and .com.gr names. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great to hear that. I think it'll be just procedural but then I thought that at your last nom too, so... And on that Wikipedia Class action/earthquake scam etc., I haven't quite figured the ton of material out yet, but weekend has just started so I think I'm gonna dig a bit :). --Deprifry|+T+ 15:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd get something more like this. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy![edit]

Would you accept a nomination to the Arbitration Committee? --Chiacomo (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny. Just wanted to ask the same question. So would you? --vonbergm 07:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry about the weather[edit]

hello! is it windy where you live? -- posted by User:FragileFrigateBird

Revert request[edit]

Will you revert the U.S. aked to release iraqi women prisoners? I think I did it wrong. Jason Safoutin 13:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See here if you need help reverting. --Deprifry|+T+ 13:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you revert the Dog rescues owner form diabetic attack...the article is now copyvio. Jason Safoutin 16:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. The article has only been slightly altered since you started, I don't see the addition of any copyrighted material to it. Which version should I revert to? --Deprifry|+T+ 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My last revision...the latest one frome before the alteration. Jason Safoutin 16:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But why? Sorry, I still don't understand it. I see only good faith edits and no copyvio. --Deprifry|+T+ 16:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The part of the bone mentioned in the mouth is copy vio...the sentence about the dog laying across him, is copyvio...they are what seems to be copied and pasted right from the source. Jason Safoutin 16:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But those sentences were there from the start, it seems you added them. As you can see here the differences between your first version and the current one are pretty minor. There's no version I could revert to. --Deprifry|+T+ 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have a vandal on Osama story now. Reverted it but only have 1 left for that article. Jason Safoutin 17:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warned the guy and having an eye on him. And the WN:3RR does not apply to cases of simple vandalism, so you could savely revert such changes as often as necessary.--Deprifry|+T+ 17:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

block DragonFire1024 3RR[edit]

se Admin action alerts International 14:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot publish an article under dispute..I did not revert. I know how to but thats not reverting. I stated my concerns and its misleading. I am sorry but thats my stand. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 14:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that on WN:ALERT, however as I am participating in the debate I would prefer if an univolved admin would look into this matter. --Deprifry|+T+ 14:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikimedia Deutschland[edit]

Might as well just expand the translation, it's quite broken right now and could use some substance. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews:Story preparation/ANZAC Day, 2006[edit]

Thanks for removing publish from that prepared story; I was half asleep when I started it -:) I forgot to untag it Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 09:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :). --Deprifry|+T+ 19:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi -- posted by User:FragileFrigateBird

Deletion request[edit]

Hi,please have a look at [2] as I think the 3 days are up and maybe it can be taken off the deletion list? Neutralizer 20:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow; that was fast. Thanks:) Neutralizer 20:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: 70.35.169.151's block[edit]

Could I please ask you to enact a ban on all further cases alike to this one: [3]? These are Spambots, and are not proxies, so enabling them to use the same IP to spam us again isn't efficient. Banning them limits their availability of spamming again, however. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 20:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Ok. It just seems to me that most of those are dynamic IPs and never come back. And if I see someone returning I usually issue a year's ban. --Deprifry|+T+ 21:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Nomination[edit]

Knowing you as well as I do, I'm sure you're aware you've been nominated for ArbCom... Are you planning to officially accept the nomination or decline it? - Amgine | talk en.WN 07:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought my response above would suffice. Well, I've clarified it now on the nomination page. Thanks for the notice. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

The Arbcom selection process is completed, and you have been chosen by the community to serve in this role. Hopefully you won't have anything to do but twiddle your thumbs, but good on you anyway! - Amgine | talk en.WN 23:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Congrats. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 23:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :). --Deprifry|+T+ 06:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

151.188.16.12[edit]

You might want to take a look at User talk:151.188.16.12, I already have a response to the web-based email I sent and the issue has been passed on to their IT department. The "Little Johnny" in question may expect a visit from a BOFH. :-) --Brian McNeil / talk 17:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. Feel free to overturn the block whenever you think it's appropiate. --Deprifry|+T+ 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Frenzy[edit]

Heh, I'm actually enjoying doing this. I'm reading about 25% of the articles I protect and adding categories and doing basic formatting howlers. The "editing old articles" bit is amusing because of the recent discussions insisting we have concrete rules on the topic. If you want to join in, go ahead. I'm working on October 2005, but I think there's a few admins on a protection binge, we're all adopting different approaches to the problem. I think it is just that my contribution is more noticeable because I did daft things like do all of December 2005 in one day. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas[edit]

I didn't know that; but not sure the original meaning matters here. the term as used here was the generic term. Also, it seems the Israeli flag may indicate exspansion plans )the lines representing 2 rivers and their right to all land between the nile and euphrates rivers...but that doesn't mean it still applies. Not a big deal but just seems to read badly I think in this context? Neutralizer 13:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about Hamas twice; hmmm. what about "organization" instead of movement??That's not very good either; if you really think "movement" is the best, then that's fine with me. Thanks for the little education on the background of their flag and name. Neutralizer 13:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, well, at least I learned something. Neutralizer 14:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Hi. We usually don't delete redirects as doing so would break links from external sites. So I've restored them. --Deprifry|+T+ 10:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pages I deleted were from renames of yet unpublished artcles, which links from external sites would be broken, exactly? StrangerInParadise 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not being published doesn't prevent people from linking in, does it? Also those redirects aren't hurting anybody and there's no real reason to delete them. --Deprifry|+T+ 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you follow this logic, nothing would get deleted. These were title changes to very early working copy, no one will have linked to them, they should be deleted before somebody accidentally links to them. StrangerInParadise 19:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're refering to bad or unpublished articles being kept, I would disagree. Keeping these would clutter the developing stories section, influence the article count and possibly damage the credibility of Wikinews. I could also get formalistic with you and point you to the speedy deletion guidelines which don't allow deletion in this case. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not a reference to that. Track with me. These are articles which I worked on, were moved while unpublished, and for which all history is preserved in the targets. Here are the relevant criteria from speedy deletion guidelines
  • No meaningful content or history (e.g. random characters or words). See patent nonsense.
  • Very short articles with no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.")
  • Self-requests by the author with no third-party edit history.
  • Were created very recently as a result of a typo in the title.
The underlying articles,
...obviously remain. Please restore the delete tags to
StrangerInParadise 19:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason those guidelines distinguish between "articles" and "redirects". And therefore there is simply no basis in policy for deleting these pages. --Deprifry|+T+ 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[sigh!] The uncontestable basis in policy is,
  • Were created very recently as a result of a typo in the title.
...and the additional criteria,
  • No meaningful content or history (e.g. random characters or words). See patent nonsense.
  • Very short articles with no context (e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great.")
  • Self-requests by the author with no third-party edit history.
...also apply. The distinction, in this case is without a difference.
Please think: how would there (ever) possibly be external links to these pages?
StrangerInParadise 19:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A reply at my Admin proposal[edit]

I've given some thought to your question, and have finally replied. StrangerInParadise 03:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

writing an article[edit]

Thank you Deprifry, for analyzing an article written with me. It was my first article and very new to wikinews. Mostly, I write the articles on wikipedia. I am not so expert and will be trying to follow all the instructions given by you. Thanks -- Shyam (T/C) 20:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

If the 3RR rule can't be quantified, then the whole exercise is rediculous. -Edbrown05 09:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it comes down to: is there, or is there not a 3RR rule? -Edbrown05 09:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously there is a 3RR rule, now the question is, what is a revert. I think it's gotten a bit crazy. The enforcement over MrM misbehaviour. -Edbrown05 09:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to say there is no enforcement. -Edbrown05 09:25, 21 February 2006 (

UTC) I'm coming out strongly because I know you are neutral. And I do not expect you to understand all the nuances of the arguements, but I do expect that as a neutral contributor to this community that you would object to the bold, outlandish, and absurb removal of a photograph in a news story .... I'll post it in a moment. -Edbrown05 09:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have zapped your reply[edit]

...when I clarified (I thought) your vote— is it still tentative? It may have been oversight on my part, or this caching on the WC page. In any event, my apologies: I appreciated the reply, and the opportunity to discuss the preponderance standard. I trust you also find absurd MrM's assertion that I was attempting to impersonate you, please let me know if you have further concerns.

Again, apologies,

StrangerInParadise 00:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. The only thing that makes me a little angry when a look back at the matter is that you altered the comments twice, even after I explicitly stated that I do not appreciate it. --Deprifry|+T+ 09:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have a problem in that our dialog, though interesting, is evolving in the middle of the vote, which should be in the form of,

  • Position. Brief comment. -SIG

even,

  • Leaning opposed. I think it is a bad idea. -D

I think we should continue the dialog, could I ask you to enter a briefer vote, and move the whole thread down to Comments? I'd do it, but MrM is spoiling for a fight. =(

StrangerInParadise 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I generally believe that Voting is evil. Especially in policy making as polls aren't really a suitable way to achieve consensus and on the contrary encourage factionalizing and groupthink. So making a vote as discussion-like as possible is a valid ambition, IMO. Will respond on the WC later today --Deprifry|+T+ 09:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I called for a vote, you postd to the vote section, so how is making a vote as discussion-like as possible by breaking the format not (ever so mildly) disruption. The comment section is below. I've been flexible on lengthy comments, but your entry makes the count less scannable and unclear to those who would vote below. BTW, how can you simultaneously encourage factionalizing and groupthink? I could even respect, as a protest vote,

  • Voting is evil. This is a dumb idea.

...which I guess would have to be an abstention? I just have the VIE conversation with Chiacomo recently. Tell me, when others cite the need for community acceptence, how should this be evidenced?

StrangerInParadise 15:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have written "either factionalizing or groupthink" because it is my impression that at suchs polls many people seem to base their votes essentially on either "Well, he is supporting it so I should too" or "I'm not completely OK with all this but I'll vote anyway". But back to the matter at hand, I'm not disputing your right to hold a vote and sometimes they are indeed necessary. But when it seems to be all about the "count" and only secondary about the underlining rationales, I suggest you take another look at consensus. --Deprifry|+T+ 06:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting this is all about the count? I think I've followed conscientiously the consensus principle, discussing the merits and resolving differences. I do, however, have mensheviki claiming to be bolsheviki, so a sizing-up of factions is not unreasonable. StrangerInParadise 17:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration[edit]

Please enter your opinion as to whether the ArbCom should accept a request for arbitration in User:172.150.5.17 vs. User:Amgine. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please enter your opinion as to whether the ArbCom should accept a request for arbitration in User:Brian New Zealand v User:Amgine --Chiacomo (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Mailing List[edit]

I have created an ArbCom mailing list on Google Groups (I didn't get a response when asking in #wikimedia-tech). Please send me a message from the address to which you wish to receive arbcom message. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfAr[edit]

Can you please take a look at WN:RfAr and make your comment on whether or not to accept the matter for arbitration - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 04:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Close - BNZ v Amgine[edit]

Would you please vote (or discuss or make a change in the implementation notes) in the Motion to Close in BNZ v Amgine? Thank you! --Chiacomo (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Are you OK?[edit]

Yep. We're fine -- several houses in our town (blocks from my house) were absolutely destroyed. Eight confirmed dead in our county; I knew the family of four that was killed. We're blessed, truly, that no more were injured and no more damage occured. We should have power to most of the area by tomorrow afternoon. I met with the police and EMA people right after lunch -- they're most concerned about looting tonight, now. I can't imagine looting in a town of 3,000. --Chiacomo (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

soft drink picture[edit]

Thanks Deprifry. What is the filename of the commons picture, it does not seem to have the same one (or maybe I will just have to wait a little longer until that database is refreshed...). --vonbergm 17:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, picture is up now.
No problem :) --Deprifry|+T+ 19:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on this ArbCom case[edit]

Something has to happen. Nothing, which is the current state of where this is at, isn't good enough. Cartman suggested that a response by MrM to the whole process, which is basically no response, would set a bad precedent for ArbCom if a user could simply ignore it. -Edbrown05 11:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the post made on Cartman's page [4], and here is the reply [5]. Best regards. -Edbrown05 11:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think "nothing" is going to happen. There's currently a principle that the dispute resolution process has to be followed, a finding of fact and a remedy against MrM, that are all about to pass with a few others still undecided. So I don't believe we're sending out a signal that ignoring process is the way out. --Deprifry|+T+ 12:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean now. My last visits to the /Proposed page were so focused that I failed to step back and look at the bigger picture unfolding there. -Edbrown05 06:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

There is a motion to close in Users Cartman02au et al v Mrmiscellanious. Would please review the implementation notes and cast your vote, if you feel ready? --Chiacomo (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfda[edit]

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 12:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deprifry/Archive4&oldid=259008"