User talk:Mrmiscellanious/Archive6

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6
08/12/2005 | 10/03/2005 | 10/24/2005 | 11/27/2005 | 12/23/2005 | 01/27/2006
Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12
02/17/2006 | 03/12/2006 | 03/21/2006 | 04/07/2006 | 04/23/2006 | 05/07/2006

Please Explain your actions?

[This story...] --elliot_k 02:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I would appreciate it if you could please outline the specifc reasons you have removed the article from Published to Developing. On the Talks page you mention a Greenpeace Survey is the reason. Yet there is NO mention of a Greenpeace Survey in the article. I do not understand why you have done what you have done. Please clarify? I'm happy to address your concerns, but so far there is nothing substantial about your claim of unattributed content in the article. Thanks mate... --elliot_k 04:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for info

Neutralizer 13:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you concerned?

MrM. you and I are not pals; but aren't you concerned about some of those links Paul found? Neutralizer 02:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to ignore rule breaking when done by a pal or someone we look up to? Isn't that puting them "above the law"? Isn't that contrary to everything freedom stands for? Please take an hour and read all those links. I did and I encourage you to. If you can come back afterwards and say that Amgine deserves no consequences for those actions; then I will never mention it again. Neutralizer 02:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, you may remove my nomination on WN:A, cheers Brian New Zealand 05:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is now removing tags from an article in progress that has been in develkopmewnt by me and others. (the stardust interview) I am waiting on further info from the project and stated that on the talk page. And I have to go to work now. Jason Safoutin 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today infobox

I assume that {{Wikinews Today short infobox}} should be removed from any articles which are older than one day, no? Just checking. Nyarlathotep 19:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting this on the talk page of the two of you, as I'm probably most guilty of using the "Today" infoboxes on articles that don't have pictures.
I really like these as a way of keeping people within the site and navigating around without having to keep returning to the main page. My preference would be to see these infoboxes remain on articles even after they're old and archived. This means that if someone digs an old article up with the infobox they see recent templates that may tempt them to look around more. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block user:Grye

I didn't unblock him, Amgine did. I just raised his complaint on WN:ALERT. He was unblocked before i did that. [1]

I am concerned that there is no basis in policy for a 6 month block. Further, I would like to assume good faith and believe the user when he says striking the comments was an accident. Perhaps you can explain your reasoning for the extended block on WN:ALERT including diffs of the offense (if it's more than just the one). There is no rule against meat-puppeting that I'm aware of, by the way. --Chiacomo (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We are only charged to operate within policy, as you know. I am fully aware of their reasons for being here -- dishonest and disruptive, certainly, but not a violation of policy. I am willing to assume good faith and believe that striking out your comments was an accident. --Chiacomo (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am unblocking user Grye because there is no basis in policy to block for more than 30 days. If you feel the user should be de-edited, there is an existing policy (Wikinews:Editors) for removing his ability to edit for an extended period. - Amgine | talk en.WN 22:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but this blocking business has gone beyond a joke. Neutralizer, now Grye. Who else? "no basis in policy to block for more than 30 days"> Show me basis to block at all. Please do not make such disingenuous comments to try to give your totalitarian meship a facade of responsibleness. Spending a lot of time doing admin work does not make you responsible. Both MrM and Amgine, you are both just a little beyond the pale, don't mind if I say so. MrM you were incredibly rude to Grye, and I think over-reacted grossly to ban for six months, and repeatedly re-ban after Grye was un-banned.
MrM you often criticise others for rudeness. You are one of the rudest correspondents on this site.
Anyone sees either of these two admins block anyone ever again without absolute community demand, please notify me and I will ban them for as long as it takes, as often as needed. -- Simeon 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Hannukah to you too

;) —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newsworthy sub-cat

Rape is not news worthy? Here in my neighborhood, sexually repressed or I don't know what it is rural and central Virginia maybe, a nut locks children in a closet. It's not news to you , no - 02:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly the point, I don't care (okay maybe I do) if you fall over on your ice skates and have to have a doctor say, only the second minor heart failure.


Do you mind if I move User:Mrmiscellanious/Sandbox/Quotetemplate:quote for easier typing? Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 20:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WNN video

just wanted to say I like your logos [2]. I'm assuming you're aware of Wikinews:Broadcast as well? Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for your help Smile.png DragonFire1024 9:37pm, 13 January 2006 (EST)

Remember to tag images.

Please remember to tag publicity photo's as {{Publicity}} and logo's as {{logo}}. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 17:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does Image:Zawahiri.jpg not fall under publicity. I'm sure that he doesn't want the FBI releasing his picture and putting him on their hit list, but its still a publicity image? Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 05:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

al-Zawahiri article

Well I am here to report the facts. And the fact is he was targeted. But you are welcome ☺☻Smile.png DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 01:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well It looks like its in the dumps maybe. I think title should be and should remain Ayman al-Zawahiri targeted in airstrike. 18 reported dead." I do not see how that headline is NPOV considering when it created the article my intentions as were yours were to talk about Zawahiri being the target. He is/was the target. And thats what the article was about in the first place. So many edits have happened that I think the article is just too much to repaire now...maybe. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin

mr whats your temp at your house???

I disagree. Thats fine. the statement is misleading...I don't know why I bother. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 14:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be fair and balanced...this statement is NOT. and I am sorry but this is an unfair action. This statement is context and we cannot lie or mislead readers. I still dispute. sorry. DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 15:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems neutralizer is editing to his POV again. on the Zawahirir tape released article he is editing out factual info and adding his POV based on what he has on the talk page of the article. The soo called blitzer thing is on his user page as a spoof or at least was. Jason Safoutin 03:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I cannot put a message on his discussion page, because he deleted the stuff on his talk page....i guess thats good. I am not gonig to get into it with him. Jason Safoutin 03:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


When will this happen? --FragileFrigateBird 19:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Point of View was not my point of view really but okay![reply]

Quaero story

I think have addressed your concerns in my cleanup... pls review and provide feedback.



We're not allowed images that are just plain fair use ( from WN:FU)


"Any use not covered by this whitelist is not allowed. If you feel that the whitelist should be expanded, please comment on the discussion page."

If the FBI image is not publicity then we shouldn't be using it.

In regards to the wnn image, I'm not suggesting it should be turned over to wikimedia. Whats wrong with putting it under CC-BY (until such a time that its accepted as the logo) and having it on commons. Only fair use images are supposed to be on the local wikinews image repository (Not sure if thats right name)


"You can make a local upload to the English edition of Wikinews through Special:Upload. Local uploads should be exclusively used for fair use images."

Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 21:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why did you delete my response from the talk page?

RE: CALM...Well I have to work in 45 mins anyway. LoL I was planning on it :-)

DragonFire1024 is Jason Safoutin 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did you delete "Bats as Ebola reservoir"

  • Could you give me reasons ? it is news with source, it's not spam or ads, don't understand

ok, it needed to be writed but i added the flags Jacques Divol 08:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

German court orders

I would like to expand your article to include another order from the same court, this time against Wikimedia Deutschland but concerning the same topic. Do you think it would into yours or should I start a new article? --Deprifry|+T+ 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


As I told you before, I am accessing the Internet from a public computer (web cafe) and you are only succeeding in blocking innocent users. SUCH AS MY GOOD SELF!! I am not responsible for vandalising the Cheney news story, or indeed any other news story! I have engaged in a civil argument with SPUM over a football article- in the talk page. Where your friend SPUM called me a "wanker" for pointing out that your football article had severe spelling problems.

The fourth Geneva convention clearly states:

Art. 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

I know you and your American friend probably don't care about the rules, hence the war crimes, and support of war crimes (on MrM's "opinions" page). You come from a fascist culture. You may accept intimidation and prohibition of speech; I will certainly NOT accept such pathetic nonsense. Such as your "blocking" joke.

will result in reprisal within wikipedia policy

You can try and change wikipedia policy so as to outlaw criticism of your spelling you joker. Or make it policy to ban a whole internet cafe for a month because someone's editing the cheney article. I did not vandalise the Cheney article and I demand immediate removal of the ban. 20:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now you're feeling all big and that little member of yours doesn't even matter online. your backward views are just boring, if you havent got anything novel to say dont bother saying anything at all. your support of a criminal war for oil contradicts your pro-life stance. murdering women and children from above (by bombing them, thats all the cowardly yanks do having got their asses kicked in Nam) is fine, just save a fetus!! joker! your pro-guns stance similarly stupid. and by the way, a flag is merely a piece of textile.

now to the "block"- as i told you i did NOT edit the Cheney page although admittedly i hate him as much as i hate the rest of you yank jokers. i am accessing wikipedia from a public computer/internet cafe and have no control over the actions of other users. --16:42, 20 January 2006


Hi. Can you heed MediaWiki_talk:Edittools? Thanks. Paroxysm 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslims follow Hitler - speedy deletion

Hi MrM. Just wondering, where in the speedy deletion guidelines does it say that an article should be speedied because it is "Minimal, POV"? - Borofkin 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't exactly answer my question. Surely if you are going to speedy delete something it needs to be covered by the speedy-delete policy? - Borofkin 02:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Whitehouse spokesperson is "Deputy National Security Advisor"

Regarding your edit below;please respond to my edit below yours when you have a chance. Thank you Neutralizer 05:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not enough evidence. This person doesn't even seem like he was qualified to comment on the ordeal so far. I therefore am reverting the edit back to its previous position before Neutralizer made his edits; this is very thin proof, and Neutralizer has violated WN:NOT. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 03:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MrM.please advise specifically what part of WN:NOT you feel I have violated as I certainly do not want to do it agian. I have looked but am unable to see what you are referring to? Neutralizer 04:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've deleted your Forum article, because it contradicts WN:NOT. To quote the document:


2. Wikinews is not a soapbox, chatroom, or discussion forum.
Please do not recreate this article in the future. Thanks! --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article as an experiment of the Talk system and to be bold. It's the Wiki Way. Why delete an experiment? Why not leave it for a while and see how it works out? --wikipedia:user:unforgettableid
Because I do not feel that the community has supported such a use of an article. If you wish to expirament, please use your userspace to do so. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have switched the links to my userspace. Would you kindly let me know what was in the deleted page so I can recreate it? Unforgettableid 02:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restored article

The article has been restored, please move to your user space. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 02:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

done, thanks Unforgettableid 02:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny "niggle"

Just a small comment about your user page, shouldn't you prefix the phone numbers with +1 for anyone calling from outside the US? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]