User talk:DragonFire1024

I am mostly active on Wikinews and Wikimedia-commons. I am also an Admin. on Wikinews. It is easier to leave me a message on my Wikinews talk page. DragonFire1024 23:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview

I have just translated your interview for the Signpost in Dutch (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Special/2007-06/nl), but I couldn't translate one answer, because it wasn't clear to me. I was hoping you could explain it to me, so I can finish the translation. You answered the question "As a board member, what strategies would you consider to raise money for the Foundation?" with "Longer, more publicized fund-raisers, grant options as there are many in the US, AN EXAMPLE ONLY: ..." What did you mean with grant options? Was grant a verb or a noun? Did you mean to say that such fund-raisers give us options, or were you talking about possible funds given to tax-exempt nonprofit organizations or local governments by foundations, corporations, governments, small business and individuals? Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^Rule^/^Contributions 13:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFCU

Your RFCU on Bennyboyz3000 does not cite diffs showing behavior on Wikipedia, and therefore there is no basis to perform the RFCU. Please make the necessary changes to your request so it can be processed. MSJapan 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for digging up a free image from Flickr for the Tatiana article. I thought that WxHalo's image might have copyright issues, and I had found a Flickr picture (Image:Siberian Tiger - Panthera tigris altaica.jpg on Commons) that appeared to be Tatiana, but having a confirmed AND free photo is much better. Thanks for putting in the time on this. *** Crotalus *** 00:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Sure, I'll answer some questions for you...for the sake of WP:BEANS and such, perhaps via email would work best? Just send me one & I'll get back to you. — Scientizzle 23:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement?

I think you can take my comments here and here as representative. The jargon (NFCC, EDP) is translated by Carcharoth here.

Using non-free pictures as decoration in violation of our own policies - essentially because we know that book/record/game companies will never, ever sue - is not good. As far as censorship goes, the only kind I'm willing to accept is self-censorship. Outside pressure should never influence us, not to do what the pressure group want, nor to do the opposite just to spite them. We should base our decisions on Wikipedia's policies and values. Those policies and values say that we should only use non-free content under stringent conditions. This image didn't and doesn't meet those conditions and should be deleted. If it does meet them in the future it should be undeleted. Simple, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DragonFire, would you also be interested in this? It was the discussion at the Signpost tip page that seems to have started this all off. Well, technically the article in the WND (World Net Daily) started it off. But I then did a list of examples of the content they were complaining about. My views are that some of the content is OK, but we (and Commons) could do a lot better at pruning some of the more unnecessary stuff away. Some of the material is clearly not encyclopedic, while some is clearly educational. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentially, do please make sure that the FBI are indeed investigating. If all that has happened is that someone complained to the FBI, that is not the same as them actually investigating, no matter how many newspapers make that claim. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the claim that the FBI is investigating is pretty far-fetched, and most likely false. Certainly, no one at the FBI has asked the Wikimedia Foundation to look into the uploader or anything else. And also certainly, the image has to my knowledge never been banned in the US or even subject to a court action of any kind. (If there is evidence to the contrary, no one has produced it.) I personally think it should be deleted as being un-encyclopedic, but the idea that it is illegal is one that people keep repeating without a shred of evidence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respect for Wikinews

Wikinews

I have noticed that you stated that you think the actions of an OTRS leak at Wikinews was unacceptable. I just want to say a few things. We are a news agency. We report news, regardless of who its about or what its about. We consider our original reporting to be very valuable, but it seems that in my opinion Wikimedia doesn't care. WMF uses secret mailing lists, secret wikis to discuss stuff that I or other Wikinewsies e-mail the staff about. We rarely get any exclusive statements from you or WMF and we certainly are not on the top of the list for giving statements to. I think we deserve some respect. We IMO get none from WMF. I think the recent actions of the staff have shown that they don't want to contribute to WN in any manner. Its really disgusting that we have to force our way into getting information from WMF. As a news agency, and a project of WMF, we should not have to do that. I think this battle has gone on long enough. Please, show us some respect. We more than deserve it. I have been on WN for 2 1/2 years and I never have seen such a great amount of disrespect from WMF. DragonFire1024 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, in my only remarks on the subject, I stated very specifically the Wikinews should be given the same respect as the New York Times. If an OTRS volunteer leaked an email from a 3rd party to the New York Times, I would regard that as a grave abuse of the trust that people place in us when they send us private email. Far from showing a lack of respect for Wikinews, my point is that we should treat Wikinews the same as any other news agency! I will also clarify this over at Wikinews.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check this...

Review this and request oversight if you feel so inclined. — Scientizzle 02:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah...its ok. We have a history with this user on Wikinews. To be honest, he gave me a really good laugh at the time. DragonFire1024 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Re: Regarding Arabic documents on Wikinews

Hello. Yes, I'm a native speaker of the Arabic language. But unfortunately, I have no time currently. I asked the most active user in the Arabic Wikinews, PICAWN, to help you. Best regards.--Avocato (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]