User talk:Rcameronw

Welcome

Rcameronw, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these!

• Wikinews:Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
• Wikinews:Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced

Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews:

• Wikinews:Introduction - overview of the site
• Wikinews:Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
• Wikinews:Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
• Wikinews:Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
• Wikinews:Contents - the contents page.

There are always things to do on Wikinews:

• Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
• The front page lead articles often need updating
• Developing stories need finishing and publishing
• Discussions need your input
• Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
• And of course, stories need writing!

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

BTW, the earlier deal was covered on Wikinews. Dan100 (Talk) 20:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio

You can't just copy and paste a copy-righted article and then surround parts of it in quotes. You also directly copied and pasted parts of the article without even doing that - you are attempting to palm off someone's elses work as your own. As it says in below the text editing field, "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!".

I have also deleted your copy and paste to the temp page. If you want to look at that version of the article, just use the page history.

You could've re-written this article to remove the copyvios by now, and it would have been published and on the front page. Why don't you do that? Dan100 (Talk) 11:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Belarus

Thanks for encouraging me. Sometimes it's much harder to write a good npov article just by oneself, therefore I appreciate the contributions. Also I think that wikinews has the uniqe potential to eventually have truely global coverage and let the reader select what he is really looking for. Ktoto 14:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

hello

Are you Richard who did the earlier press freedom stories? Another excellent story on Burundi, I'm glad you're sticking with it. I don't know if you saw that I turned the category Burundi into a portal, which gives the potential for more people interested in Burundi to collaborate. I've been working on the Quaker page which sort of shows the scope for the workspace you could have. But also just turning the page into a portal means that there is a proper page with leads and things. Anyway, just thought I'd let you know... :) ClareWhite 08:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The story sounds great, hope it works out. If your friends are enthusiastic about Wikinews but find the language difficult, there's always the French language version. There's also a translation network, but equally people will always be happy to help tidy up language. I found in trying to encourage my Rwandan friends here that computer access was more of a problem and also collaborating sources, but you seem to be doing well on that side. Anyway, I've spent too long here this morning, see ya :) ClareWhite 09:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing tags

Hey there! First off, I just wanted to thank you for addressing the concerns I had with Rights groups hail Belgian indictment of former Chad dictator. Great job on the article! --Mrmiscellanious 19:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing

For 24 hours. I blocked you when it became clear you had brought a spurious admin abuse request, without presenting any evidence of abuse, and when you admitted you were trolling in the article's talk page. Disruption of the wiki is grounds for temporary blocking.

Please feel free to [1] me, or I am currently in irc. - Amgine/^talk 01:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I looked up "site disruption" on the blocking page, and it said this: "disruption may include changing other users' signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits". As far as I'm aware, I wasn't engaging in (or accused of) either of those things.

• It also says that: "Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked.", and further up the page that "Admins should only do this as a last resort - efforts to educate must be made first, followed by warnings.". As far as I'm aware, no such warning was ever given.

POSTSCRIPT - ISSUE NOW RESOLVED

Wikinews blocking policy

Please see Wikinews:Blocking policy. --Chiacomo (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Excuse my tardiness, RE: Opinions questionnare

Forgive my tardiness, however I *just* discovered that you posted some questions on the talk page of my opinions in my userspace. It's been ages since I've checked there <blush>, but I suppose later is better than never, no? :). Anyways, here's my responses:

1. Are deliberate attacks on civilians (as distinct from military attacks which unintentionally kill or injure civilians) ever justified?

Deliberate attacks on civilians is mostly unacceptable. However, certain situations may deem it justifyable (Hiroshima attack, I believe, was acceptable).

2. Some people believe that the US was right to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima because it prevented the need for a seaborne invasion in which thousands of GIs would have died. Do you agree?

I do believe that the reason we won WWII was greatly because of the use of the Atomic bomb at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that effectively weakened Japan during the war. However, I do not believe we dropped the bomb just to "cut corners", instead did it with a plan to end the war as quickly as possible.

3. Is state-sanctioned torture ever justified?

Almost never. However, if something more valuable is sought for, torture may be acceptable in some situations. If information could be ridden out of one person through even hours of grueling torture that will save even one life, I believe it is worth it.

4. If you could kill one innocent person to save ten, should you do it?

Of course you should, but always explore every option before doing anything.

5. If you could kill one innocent person to save ten million, should you do it?

Of course you should, but always explore every option before doing anything.

6. In 1946, a group of holocaust survivors, calling themselves "Dahm Y’Israel Nokeam", allegedly plotted to poison the water supply in Berlin and a number of other cities, as retribution for the atrocities of the Nazi regime [1],[2]. If they had succeeded, would the attack have been justified?

No. No matter what you do, "Eye-for-an-eye" is never a successful way to condone business.

7. If "Dahm Y'Israel Nokeam" had carried out such an attack against Germany in 1942, would it have been justified?

No.

8. If Al Qaeda set off a nuclear device on US territory, should the US nuke Mecca?

No. Mecca is a city full of innocent people who do not support Al-Qaeda, and even more is important to even more people who are not associated with the group. Al-Qaeda is a few rotten eggs out of a basket of many good eggs in the Islamic faith. It would hardly be justifyable to destroy a city of it's importance to many because a loose-knit group of terrorists attacked us.

9. Is it ever right to assassinate a tyrant?

It is always better to try someone for their crimes than to just kill them for their actions. Even if the result is going to be certain death (as in the case of Saddam Hussein), they should still be tried - that way, the public knows that the maximum sentence has been served by the person.

10. Is there such a thing as international law, in any meaningful sense?

No, and I highly doubt there will be.

Sorry again for the delay. --Mrmiscellanious 01:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Armed conflicts in the world down by 40% since early 1990s.

You previously were involved in a conversation on the talk page of the above linked article. Do you currently have any objections to the article being published? Please consider noting any objections on the talk page of the article. --Chiacomo (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Who guards the guardians?

"Fixed terms for admins" <-- I think that this is not the way to go. It is tempting to think along these lines, but it does not go to the root of the problem. When a particular administrator uses a block to win an argument over wiki content, that administrator should be removed from having the power to block users.

Beyond dealing with vandalism, administrators have no special control over the content of a wiki. Admins are granted the power to do vandalism rollbacks and block vandals. When admins start using their power to block users as a tool to control wiki content other than vandalism, they have crossed the line and forfeit the right to be an admin. The problem is, the people who established and dominate Wikinews are happy with the biases that have been institutionalized and they are willing to use any trick they have (including blocking users who do not share their biases) in order to make sure that Wikinews continues to have its current biases.

I think the solution is to carefully document the biases of Wikinews, support any policy changes that limit the ability of admins to abuse their powers, and take away admin powers from any admin who has abused their power. None of this will be easy because those who are happy with the current biases of Wikinews will not support a study of the existing biases, bogus policy changes will be proposed that will be "sold" as fixes to problems while they actually fix nothing, and admins who abuse their power will claim that they have only enforced policy, as was their duty. Of course, what they really mean is that they have presented an interpretation of their actions that tries to justify abuse of power as being enforcement of policy.

It takes a lot of work to expose and fix institutionalized bias. Finding people who will do this work is problematical because it is far easier for people to just go elsewhere rather than fight for an unbiased Wikinews. --JWSchmidt 16:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"The 'fixed term' solution turns the tables" <-- I understand the argument for fixed terms. In my estimation, the negatives cancel out the positives of fixed terms. Negatives: Most editors do not abuse their powers and it would waste much community effort to have to routinely pass judgement on everyone in order to get rid of problems. Also, there could be a period of many months before corrective action might be taken after an admin abuses their power. In my view, the solution to abuse of power by admins should be a solution that does not have to wait until a term is up. I can understand how other people would count up the positives and negatives differently than I do. All I can do is report my count. --JWSchmidt 22:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for de-Adminship

Please consider bringing a request for de-adminship which shows abuse of admin privileges if you would like to do so. If there is no abuse which may be pointed to, the request cannot be acted on according to the policy on the admin page. - Amgine 03:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Chatchua Thai

Hi! Just curious about your interest in Thailand. Have you worked out there? Rcameronw 10:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

My girlfriend of the past ten years is Thai and I've visited the country on several occasions. Current plans are to move there permananently once our son is old enough to stand on his own two feet. Brian McNeil / ^talk 10:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Cool - I worked there during 2003 - fascinating place and good to see you helping get it coverage on W/N --Rcameronw 10:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You are blocked for 24 hours.

I have blocked you for 24 hours on the basis of site disruption by reverting the admin page to restore an RfdA which does not have basis in policy. As I explained earlier on this talk page to you, an RfdA must have a policy basis or it will be removed. You have previously been blocked for this behaviour, so you are clearly aware of the consequences of it.

Your block expires 01:13, 27 November 2005, and I look forward to hearing from you then. If you would like to contact me in the beforehand, please leave me a message on my Wikinews user talk page, or you may e-mail me or try to contact me in irc. - Amgine | ^talk 01:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Dude, only just saw this. Been busy... Suffice to say that I think you're in danger of running Wikinews into the ground with all this petty infighting. Rcameronw 09:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Amgine Administratorship

Hello. You can vote for or against Amgine becoming an administrator of Wiktionary here:[2]. See ya', 68.82.205.118 17:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy proposal Re; Time limit for Administrators

hi,; hope you can support this I just put this on the watercooler policy section

This is an urgent issue that must be addressed now,imo, because an integral condition for exercising administrative authority here on wikinews is stipulated to be "You are trusted by the community"[1].

I have designed a very simple policy proposal. Our past attempts at dealing with this sensitive issue(e.g.ArbCom proposals) have been unsuccessful,imo, because of their complicatedness. I would simply ask, if possible, that this proposal be given an "up or down" vote (with associated comments of course). Any attempt to complicate OR DELAY IT (especially by existing administrators) could be seen as suspicious behavior, I think. Administrators who have the community's trust have nothing to fear with this proposal.

Proposal;

1. As of Feb.1,2006, adminships will be for a 1 year term. 2. All existing non-Bureaucrat adminships will terminate Feb. 1st. 2006.

3.Nominations for renewal of existing adminships will begin on January 24th.

SUPPORT;

OPPOSE;

COMMENTS;