This is User talk:NGerda Archive 3, performed at 10:20 UTC on July 1, 2005.

Archive 3

WNN Proposal

Please consider discussing changes to the WNN proposal on the talk page for the proposal before aribtrarily changing it... This is the purpose of the discussion page and the proper method for developing a proposal. I do not believe current consensus supports live programming for the initial programming schedule presented in the proposal, though a future proposal for chaning the schedule may include live programming. Again, please discuss any changes on the discussion page -- we need to follow procedure and the wiki-way. --Chiacomo 20:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Re: Audio Wikinews

Thank you very much for your comments. In the future, I will use the "change tempo" feature on Audacity to make it sound like I am talking faster. --Munchkinguy 00:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just uploaded my newsbrief again. This time it's 24% shorter. --Munchkinguy 01:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. :) NGerda 01:06, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Whoops.

I'm still getting used to the layout of things here so I ended up putting the Lebanon story in the tomrrow's news thing. Eheh ^_^; --AutisticPsycho 02:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

News Briefs Proposal

I think we should aim for a 90 second - 150 second (2.5 minutes) goal for the news briefs from now on. Anything above is bordering on the line of a Full Report, and anything less can't really get much detail in. --Mrmiscellanious 21:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Live report

Hi there I'm sorry, I've just got your message, I'm back in London now catching up! As a suggestion, you could call Sandra from our media group who already works in radio and is fabulous. You could then be talking in sort of retrospect about the conference but ask her about issues in Rwanda too? If you're keen, send me an email on claremariewhite at gmail dot com and I'll send you her number there ClareWhite 08:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Will do. :) NGerda 15:22, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Other User's Comments

Ngerda, I'd ask that you don't change other users comments, it's generally looked upon as very bad. Lyellin 16:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I was just fixing an incorrect statement, and it's been reverted and I added my own comments below it. NGerda 16:04, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I saw- but, it wasn't your incorrect statement. Just wanted to make that point clearly, is all. Lyellin 16:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough :) NGerda 16:06, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Hi --AutisticPsycho 22:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Accreditation ids

Change the card.

If we do not maintain unique id numbers, there's no point in having the accreditation number. Not that I really think there is a point to it; the only reason I can see is to have a number to put in a field on a form requesting an accreditation number. - Amgine/^talk 21:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those numbers already are unique ID numbers. NGerda 21:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Under the numbering scheme, Pingswept would be A1, Alan would be A2, you would be A3, Craig would be A4. - Amgine/^talk 21:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who's Alan? NGerda 21:36, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

See Accreditation history. - Amgine/^talk 21:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See User:Alan J Franklin

Or User:Alan J Franklin

I am quite aware of Alan's decision to leave WN, and why. However, to have a *unique* id his status as an accredited reporter must be considered, to avoid potential issues at a later point in time. If Pingswept eventually leaves, do we decrement every id number so we always use A1? of course not. - Amgine/^talk 21:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The ID numbers came well after Alan left. NGerda 21:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

And are completely arbitrary, created without community input. Use a logical system, counting, and you will need to account for all accredited reporters past and present in order to maintain that logic in the future. - Amgine/^talk 21:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR warning

You have reverted Wikinews:Credential verification three times. Please do not violate the Wikinews:Three revert rule. - Amgine/^talk 21:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go

I thought that you were a great contributor. Differences of opinion on Wikinews are nothing new, it's just something we all have to learn how to live with. Hopefully you'll come back some day. Either way, good luck in whatever you do! -- IlyaHaykinson 03:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even though I do not always agree with you NGerda, It's sad to see you go. I loved your work with broadcasts and WNN, I just wish you would slow down a bit and allow for proper discussion. Good luck in your other endevors. Lyellin 04:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good Luck, Friend.

NGerda, It's terrible to see you go. However, we all have decisions in life - and all I can tell you is Good Luck in the future. Be sure to keep in touch - my Skype acc't is always (well, sometimes) open. It was great having you as a moderator, as a colleague, and as a friend here at Wikinews. So, good luck - and best wishes! --Mrmiscellanious 04:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Only a 2-day break

I'm only taking a 2-day break. I've realized that I can't spend that much time away from Wikinews. :) I'll still be around recording stuff for Wikinews World Report. See ya good ol' buddies in on Saturday! NGerda 05:10, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hooray thought you'd gone then!

WN needs to be consensual but it also needs people to drive things forward. If you put your foot in it sometimes just think of it as the rough and tumble of a constructive newsroom - I think you're doing great. Perhaps just keep policy changes on the watercooler for a bit longer :) On the (very nice) suggested story template, do the stories automatically disappear after 24 hours or do they ave to be cleared out manually? Not quite clear. And also Sandra's happy to talk to you on WNN, if it's not too late? ClareWhite 09:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is just my 2-day "cooling off period" I'm still working on WNN, and I'd be glad to talk to her. I could definitely set up the list to take stories off after 24 hours, but in order for me to do that, each article would need to have a {{Date}} tag. NGerda 16:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Translation

I am working on a translation of Mothers, teachers air more concerns about leukemia cases at California elementary school for de.wikinews. Can you tell me what the AQMD is. Is it a private company or a public agency? --SonicR 16:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Public agency, operated by the State of California. NGerda 16:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hi

the royal we

<quote>We've been getting complaints that it's difficult to move an article from Developing stories to Latest news and fix a link if an article's name is changed. In response to that, NGerda has implemented a system where all that a user need to do to have an article display in either Developing stories or Latest news, is take advantage of the {{Date}} tag (already widely implemented), and have either {{Develop}} or {{Publish}} at the bottom of the page. </quote>

We? Who's been complaining, where, and in what numbers? Just trying to get a handle on the DPL stuff. btw, it sounds a little silly to write about yourself in the third person. It sort of displays a faceless monolithic kind of feeling that goes against the grain of general wikimedia philosophy (also i dont know if it was you or amgine or someone else but the reference to "staff" in Audio wikinews also feels a little wrong). Anyway, each to thier own.

paz y amor ~The bellman | Smile 01:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I referred to myself in the third person because that was a proposal and I wanted others to edit it freely, as it was a wiki page and not my personal comments. NGerda 02:26, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Notnews tag

Do you consider the 'Notnews tag' a contribution to the Tom Cruise story? -Edbrown05 16:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I consider it a flag that the story needs to be refined, or abandoned because at its current state, and at any foreseen future state, it's not newsworthy. NGerda 16:39, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, it is in developing stories because by definition, it is developing. Slapping a tag on it is not helping, it's a negative contribution. -Edbrown05 16:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, then can you explain how in the future it will be a newsworthy article? NGerda 16:46, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, can't explain that. I can explain stop signs.... they mean "stop". Edbrown05 16:49, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The stop signs have long been disputed. I can change them, but that's beside the point of whether or not the article will ever be newsworthy. NGerda 16:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

No, the stop signs are not besides the point. They are the point. The content of the news story is under develpment. And you put a stop sign in front of it. That is also the point.

You say the tag was put there by you because the story in it's current state is not news worthy. Okay, let it develop. Edbrown05 16:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I put it there because I don't foresee it ever being newsworthy. You, of course can prove me wrong and win a valuable prize! Just kidding about the valuable prize stuff. NGerda 17:01, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Now you are ridiculing efforts by contributors Edbrown05 17:09, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I just want to see newsworthy articles developed. NGerda 17:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I understand self-doubt haunts contributors here at Wikinews. It is not like we can sit at a round table and look each other in the eye and truly see what is in their soul. So ease up and let people do what people do. Edbrown05 17:12, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Notnews tag and added the Wackynews category. feel free to edit away! NGerda 17:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Of course I feel free to edit away, if persons would just take those damn stop signs out of my face. Edbrown05 17:19, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it really means that much to you, I'll get rid of the annoying stop signs on the tags and replace it with something else. I'd just appreciate it if you would ask a little nicer. :) NGerda 17:20, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

You hit on it. Can you please remove the stop signs from the tags. I do find them annoying, maybe or maybe not I'm alone in that regard. Edbrown05 17:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem, just don't take it out on me! I didn't put them there in the first place. :) NGerda 17:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on folks. No one person should be making arbitrary decisions which affect many, many articles. - Amgine/^talk 17:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, Amgine, I'll just change the icon so, say, a yellow caution cone. NGerda 17:27, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it is this tendency to make decisions on your own without consulting the community which has led to issues in the past. The article flags have developed the way they have through many disputes and discussions. I would suggest proposing your solution - which I think is a good one - before simply implementing it. Most likely it will be unanimously embraced. - Amgine/^talk 17:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would it be okay to make the change to one of the tags, as an example, and to see how the community reacts? If not, I can make a proposal. NGerda 17:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to drag on in this conversation when it has probably about run its course, but I have comment that I have taken high offense to the critique of a writer concerning the debacle over the 'Wikitorial' at the LA Times where it was said that "thin skinned, internet trolls" evidently doomed the experiment. True as that may be, "stop" signs or "caution" signs slow down traffic. The ability to make changes exists without the need to resort to such devices. Edbrown05 17:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check it out!

Template:Notnews/Temp

I fail to distinquish much difference between a "stop" sign and a "caution" sign. I run'em all down if I'm so inclined. Edbrown05 17:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, I tried. :( NGerda 17:55, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, now I'm getting rediculous again.... checking out.. and as always best regards to you NGerda... Edbrown05 17:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right back at you Edbrown05! NGerda 17:58, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:NGerda/Block

I've moved this out of the templates to your space for a variety of reasons, one of which is you're the only person who uses it. It can still be used via transclusion like this: {{User:NGerda/Block}}

I would actually discourage its use, and here are the reasons why:

There is no way to know the user who receives this message is the person who was the vandal. Most likely the person who gets it is using a dynamic IP and has done no wrong.
There is no way to discern whether the block is currently on the IP. This could be fixed in the template.
The use of the link to the IRC is a bad idea since you don't know if you will be in IRC when the user actually clicks on the link. It's not fair to other users of IRC to have to deal with an issue you create.

- Amgine/^talk 21:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Dan100 and NGerda I'm intrigued and alarmed by all this incomprehensible talk of DPLs and production processes but I've got a bit lost. Has anything actually changed? Where does the nice looking space for uploading prepared articles belong? Is there any hope for the Suggested Articles box, at least in what was till recently called the workspace? Did publish/develop tags disappear or are they still in use? I'm obviously not spending enough time here! ClareWhite 28 June 2005 16:04 (UTC)

DPLs

Hey, I only support them cos now they work :-).

RE Wikinews:Story upload - it just seemed the most descriptive name. But please don't move it - I update lots of instructions to use this page, so there are many links to it - many are direct html to the editing page, so won't be redirected. Obviously that doesn't preclude moving it, but I'd like to see very good reasons before moving it, and then having to fix everything! Dan100 (Talk) 28 June 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Thanks

for the images, the article really needed them Dan100 (Talk) 28 June 2005 18:53 (UTC)

No problem! I was lucky that they were Public Domain, though! NGerda June 28, 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Please be aware I am about to mass-revert your many changes.

You did not even attempt to gain community consensus when you were specifically asked to do so. - Amgine/^talk 28 June 2005 20:01 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a message 2 minutes before you revert 20 of my edits! No one opposed my changes. NGerda June 28, 2005 20:10 (UTC)

Just a note - saw your edit about Amgine removing comments - there's a dumbass bug in 1.5 which is doing that :-( Dan100 (Talk) 28 June 2005 21:06 (UTC)

I think it's the Edit Conflict bug. NGerda June 28, 2005 21:08 (UTC)

P.S. That's what happens when you install Beta 1!

Yes, please show me how

Hi NGerda. I made my way to Wikinews:Workspace. Am I on the right path? Humus sapiens 29 June 2005 03:09 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation and for the update. Looking forward to constructive collaboration. Humus sapiens 29 June 2005 03:16 (UTC)

Article development

I like too. Things are starting to make come together. But is your's a rival system or is part of the same thing? Still confused of London ClareWhite 29 June 2005 12:27 (UTC)

Just wondering, why use seperate DPLs for each day on Developing stories? Isn't that a little redundant, now DPLs list in time-order properly? Dan100 (Talk) 29 June 2005 14:50 (UTC)

3rr

As I'm sure you are aware, I am not now in IRC nor have I been in communication with CraigSpurrier today; we are not colluding. You have already violated 3rr on that article, but in my opinion it was on two different edits and would not qualify as a single 3rr violation.

However, I would like to warn you against the abuse of adminship implied by your warning. Please do not abuse your position as an admin. - Amgine/^talk 30 June 2005 20:19 (UTC)

Do you dispute that you and Cspurrier were working in concert? I certainly don't. You each reverted my edits within 2 minutes. The 3RR is violated when a user or group of users reverts for the fourth time. From 3RR: The 3RR may apply to small groups of two or three working in concert to harrass another person.

Yes, I do deny that. For some background, you should know that I insisted on that addition to the policy which previously said groups were specifically not vulnerable to the 3rr.

As for the specific case, I feel that adding categories is a form of substantive editing, rather than "tag-and-dash" of adding {{developing}} and then not helping to develop the article. Which is why I did not revert your category edits. On the other hand, it is certainly the most minor of edits one can do and still does not add content. It also exemplifies how redundant the automated list is. And I feel CraigSpurrier is equally justified in removing it for the reasons stated. - Amgine/^talk 30 June 2005 20:31 (UTC)

I never said that I wasn't going to develop the article, I was merely tagging it at that time. And just because an edit isn't large, does that mean that it can just be reverted without consequence? NGerda June 30, 2005 20:36 (UTC)

NGerda, your recent history has fairly limited number of content edits. It is reasonable to extrapolate that you would not add content to this article, as you have not added content on previous occasions. If you would like I could spend a lot of time analyzing your last 100 edits in the article namespace and providing you with the proof for my conjecture. I'd really rather not spend the time that way. - Amgine/^talk 30 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)

It is the IRC RC thing, I keep it open most of the day and I assume Amgine also does. When I am online I see edits as they happen and will normal be able to deal with them quickly. --Cspurrier 30 June 2005 20:33 (UTC)

That doesn't remove the fact that you and Amgine were working together. -- NGerda June 30, 2005 20:36 (UTC)

Yes it does. We each reacted to your edits, but we were not working together. (btw Craig, I'm just using rcbirds atm because I'd hoped to concentrate rather than get overly distracted.) - Amgine/^talk 30 June 2005 20:42 (UTC)

Please do not abuse your position as an admin - coming from the person who uses rollback many times a day - something that should only ever be used for reverting vandals - that's actually pretty funny. Dan100 (Talk) 30 June 2005 22:33 (UTC)

An important support

on your proposal regarding the dispute tags has just been posted. Why don't you call the question? That is, why don't you say you'll implement it and then wait a little bit to see if anyone objects. If not, go for it. - Amgine/^talk 30 June 2005 23:03 (UTC)

A little perspective?

That's an awfully harsh block for minor vandalism to something which wasn't showing on the main page. I looked at the edits as soon as Paulrever2005 corrected them, and was waiting for the third hit before blocking. I would not have expected more than a day for a two-off vandal at worst. - Amgine/^talk 1 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

OK, then I'll change it to two. Just out of curiosity, what difference does it make? He's probably using a dynamic IP anyways. NGerda July 1, 2005 06:56 (UTC)

If it is dynamic, then sometime in the next week someone who did no wrong may be blocked from editing on WN. If not, well, several very good contributors are reformed vandals. I'd rather work on reforming than fighting. - Amgine/^talk 1 July 2005 06:58 (UTC)

Then why were you so opposed to me trying to talk a vandal ouut of being a vandal on Cspurrier's talk page? NGerda July 1, 2005 07:00 (UTC)

Apologies on that one

I did not realize they were published. BTW: the rollback merely does an edit on the version before the first one by you - it's not a "vandal tool" per se. - Amgine/^talk 1 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)

It was created to revert vandalism, not legitimately-based user edits. NGerda July 1, 2005 08:58 (UTC)

NGerda is completely correct on that. Ask anyone on WP or any developer - it should only ever be used for rv'ing vandalism Dan100 (Talk) 1 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)