User talk:ShakataGaNai/Archives/2008/November

The "symbols"

Hi dear editor ShakataGaNai; those « » are w:Guillemets or angle quotes, according to Wikipedia ("They are used in a number of languages to indicate speech"). Sorry, I usually prefer to employ them and not the usual " " and then I easily forget they are not common in English language. Thank you for your corrections and aid. Cheers. --Vilalva (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete

(User creation log); 04:09 . . John McCain is a sidekick (Talk | contribs) Account created 
(User creation log); 04:08 . . John McCain is a jackass (Talk | contribs) Account created 

IDangerMouse (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Brian got to them before I did. Thanks for the heads up though. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

US voting results in full review

• Hi, I saw you failed this article at review. The style issue has been fixed. As for final results, some states, (like Washington) aren't reporting 99-100% of precincts yet. Thats why some results "aren't final". Could you re-review? סּ _Talk 14:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

  Well NC was "called" so your data is off. Also it says "Results are sourced from both CNN and Fox News." but Fox news isn't cited as a source below. And I also think the intro paragraph could use a little work, maybe summarize the results (could be slightly more detailed then "Obama Won") but I suppose that is optional. You are missing the date line also. I don't think there is any need to rush on this, personally I think it should wait till MI comes in, so that way it is _all_ the results. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 20:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Alright, I'll give it time, wait for all the results to come in. סּ _Talk 04:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Today's Main Page

I was very flattered to wake up this morning and see three short articles I had worked on (2 1 of which I rewrote) as 3 of the 4 leads on the main page.

Thanks for splitting them out and promoting them. I hope Wikinews readers appreciate them.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it was because everything else was stale or lame. And I broke them out from the short because they were all long enough. But you are welcome! --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. They were too short to be good lead articles (none of them longer than 4 brief paragraphs), and one of them was pretty lame, but they were definitely much fresher. I would have put them there myself if you hadn't got to it first! I am glad the main page got even sharper as the day went on.

While we are on the topic, a request: you deleted the original shorts page. This means that only admins can see the original author of the Parex Bank story. I think whoever it is deserves to have it in their publicly viewable contribution history (for the bragging rights), if you can find a way of restoring the history.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. And if you look, no one gets "credit" before publishing. This is the way things work. We know who wrote things, but we don't have By lines. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

your wiki news card thing?

its overlaping some of your other stuff please take notice thank you. --Gao63 (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Works just fine for me. What browser are you using? IE? --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing articles

I am stunned that you passed Wikinews interviews the Grand Duchy of Machias and failed NTSB continues investigation of near-collision in Pennsylvania, United States. I am not quite sure what else to say, but you can see the collaboration pages of the respective articles. --SVTCobra 02:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're stunned. It means I'm doing my job. #1 - congrats, you feel it is a hoax, I don't. Difference of opinion shouldn't be stunning. #2 - Uh, did you not read the note? I thought it was EXTREMELY clear why I failed it - the inter-wiki links were broken. End of story. And before you give me this BS of "well you could have fixed it". A) I was doing reviews, not copy edits. B) I already did work on the article and fixed some of the easy links I saw broken C) I was on my way out the door to go give a public presentation about Wikinews - didn't have time.

So yea.... Shiny... --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 06:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Freewayguy

Rschen7754 wants all the accounts indefinitely blocked with e-mail and talkpage disabled, Thank you. --75.47.208.145 07:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so I hear. I will take care of the situation as I see fit. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There's been a cross-wiki issue here see the link of Freewayguy's abusive behaviour. --75.47.208.145 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's not the only problem user. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to change the block settings from 72 hours to indefinite with e-mail and talkpage disabled because he will likely abuse the talkpage and e-mail and even worse he will just make death threats and harass on Rschen7754 and others and as well. --75.47.208.145 07:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ever consider not getting into it with him? They way I see it, you guys are picking the fight here instead of going into proper channels. Also, consider maybe we've got our eye on him? If he does something again, it's not but a click to indef block. Additionally if you are SERIOUSLY concerned about the threats he is making about you - you should be calling the police, not dicking around on Wiki's. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have blocked both Freewayguy and the aforementioned user above from the English Wikipedia - blocking someone is not continuing a fight. I don't know what the policy here is, but I consider it common courtesy to notify someone that I have asked for the removal of their adminship and put it to a community vote. --Rschen7754 (talk) 08:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That is very kind of you, thanks! But fear not, I actually found out from the crew in IRC first. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Desysop closed

The request for desysop at WN:RFP has closed with unanimous consent to retain sysop rights. Perhaps in the future in controversial situations like these (intimidating behavior/harassment/death threats, history of said behavior cross numerous wikis, etc.) it might be best to doublecheck what has been done on other projects, consult with checkusers and stewards, etc. But in the end the community still has strong support for you to remain a sysop. Cirt (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I added a comment after it closed. But it hadn't closed when I hit the edit button, it just took me over twenty minutes to write that little comment as I was at work and got interrupted. It closed in the meantime and I didn't notice as it was my last edit from work. I am not saying it should be added back, just wanted to say I didn't intentionally add to a closed discussion. --SVTCobra 23:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL - Don't worry about it. It's not like you were running amock or anything. Plus, I did notice the time stamps were fairly close. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Blood

I need your precious blood. --Vampire seeking fresh human blood (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's poison. Cary Bass (talk) 23:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. But vampires are purdy kewl. I mean, I wouldn't mind being one. Get to live forever as long as ya don't go outside during the day. I can totally handle that. Plus chicks _dig_ vampires. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Third-party assessment

Please have a look at User_talk:Brianmc#.22Excuse_me.3F_This_is_reality_calling.21.22. My take is that language used by Brianmc (talk · contribs) such as: "Excuse me? This is reality calling!" and "Bite me" is not conducive to a polite and constructive dialogue, but rather instead fosters negative attitudes amongst editors in conversation and also sets an extremely bad standard for others who view these discussions. A third-party assessment from someone previously uninvolved in the discussion would be appreciated. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Really, I don't know why you'd want me involved - other than you know I'm going to answer with anything but a velvet glove. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cirt (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Update template

How do you feel about the usage of {{update}}, in a situation like this where there is a very significant development, here ? Cirt (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It's within a week of the article being released, so sure. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 16:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Cirt (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it's not within a week. It's within two months. --SVTCobra 23:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

SVT haz a good point. I saw "23 November" and then a bunch more edits in the 20 somethings with a month name about the same length. I didn't realize it was 23 November to 27 September. So in that case no. Bad Cirt - preserve history. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 07:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed. Though if there are others not familiar with Wikinews processes, or indeed wikis in general, it is certainly a convenience link to the next development in a highly related article. Cirt (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

True, you can argue it different ways. You argue for Wikinews, heavy on the Wiki. I'm thinking Wikinews, heavy on the News. While we are a wiki, a lot of what we do is fairly traditional. Not because we _want_ to be like everyone else, but there are only so many ways to skin a cat. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 18:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You do have a point, I just think there should be some way to incorporate links to obvious developments in very tightly related articles/topics. Cirt (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset) Agreed. But how do we balance developments w/ archived news? --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Does a link on a page change the entire message and content of an archived article? No. And also I have seen a few mainstream media news sites with links to more recent articles in their older articles on their online sites. Cirt (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)