Wikinews talk:Admin action alerts

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

Administrator noticeboard[edit]

Is this a proper page linked from ja:ウィキニュース:管理者連絡帳 Admin noticeboard? --Aphaia 16:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you mean "is this the equivalent of admin's noticeboard", yes, it is :-) Dan100 (Talk) 16:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What does 3RR stand for? MartinGugino 12:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

you're answer is here : Wikinews:Three revert rule Jacques Divol 13:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Requirements for bringing matters to this page[edit]

I find the ones listed thus far quite arbitrary and specious? Especially without discussion here. Neutralizer 23:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WN:ALERT exists for notifying administrators -- basically, they can set their own rules about what goes here and what doesn't. You could, rather than post here, post to the Water Cooler (which some admins don't read regularly) or to individual admin talk pages. The purpose and format of this page is somewhat fluid -- when I first arrived, it was much less active. I think its use has increased since you became an active editor. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry... Re-read my edit above... I didn't mean to imply above that the page has become more active because of your arrival -- just that the use of the page seems to be steadily increasing. --Chiacomo (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I only see the same admin names jumping onto this page rapidly again and again. Why not let the other 15 admins have a chance and a look? Neutralizer 23:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion the increase in activity on WN:ALERT is the result of a loss of faith in the dispute resolution process caused by the disastrous attempt at dispute resolution which is still currently listed there. - Borofkin 23:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, though the users did move on in the dispute resolution process and hopefully are content if not satisfied with the result. --Chiacomo (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
The dispute resolution process did move on, but the arbcom process was intensley negative, and we still have what will no doubt be a divisive admin confirmation to get through. It would have been much better to have collaboration at the dispute resolution phase, which perhaps would have prevented the whole thing. I suppose all I'm saying is that it doesn't suprise me that people use WN:ALERT for mediation, when the other alternatives have been unsuccessful or even served to make things worse. I also feel a tad silly asking users to move their dispute from WN:ALERT to WN:DISPUTE, when the previous (failed) attempt is still there there. - Borofkin 01:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


Admin action alerts page needs a little cleanup... I will do a bit. I added 'On Watch' section... useful to see which articles (maybe), members are causing conflicts within wikinews Zer T 22:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Do we have an archives for alerts that have been taken care of? I've looked and only seen them from 2005. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

They usually just get removed with no archives. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do just that. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I usually remove those that have been resolved after seven days. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OTOH it couldn't hurt to have some working manageable archives at some point soon... Cirt (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it wouldn't hurt. Just more work perhaps. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki link[edit]

Thanks.--Bertrand GRONDIN (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Not done. This page is an internal Wikinews page and that link goes to an article. As Brian says, if you know of a corresponding article then you should say so at that article. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I did it (it was for Korean navies exchange fire) In future, please specify which page you want the link to (or better yet, make a comment on the talk page of the article in question, and use {{editprotected}} ) Bawolff 18:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • BRS, from the link and username it's pretty obviously not a native or near-native English speaker. I thought it might be the one Bawolff found, but couldn't remember the title. I'm currently trying to make a dent in what seems a substantial backlog of editprotected requests. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • For all my language in response was quite 'advanced' English, I picked words I was reasonably confident would go through a decent autotranslation service and still be meaningful on the other side. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Linnell, ex police media director, perjury conviction quashed[edit]

needs reviewing urgently to stop article going stale H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Linnell, ex police media director, perjury conviction quashed <------NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED BEFORE IT GOES STALE H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 07:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Is there a policy in terms of "conflict of interest" with doing interviews with another person? For example, If I belong to an organisation and I wish to interview another member of that organisation is that allowed? H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 08:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A starting point might be Wikinews:Conflict of interest. --Pi zero (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Its probably a good idea to discuss any potential interviews with the community before doing them. As a side note, these types of questions should go on Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance. Bawolff 19:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Not to try to rush anyone, but there seems to be a large backlog of requested edits and speedy delete pages. I know that there aren't many sysops, and its very time consuming, but there are requested edits dating back to 2015. Again, I'm not trying to come off ill-mannered, and I don't want to rush anyone, but I just thought that I should point it out. --Queen Laura (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Queen Laura: There was a big influx of requests late last year, which was going to be time-consuming because the requests were controversial; I've been taking a few whacks at it from time to time. I think some of them may have been recently modified to make them less controversial, so they'd be easier to process. Just at this moment, the big problem is that William Saturn's monthly article for July needs to be reviewed (a roughly one-person-day task, well worth it but not so easy to schedule). Once past that, I may be able to make a final push and get the editprotected requests processed. --Pi zero (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)