text:
User talk:Tony1

English Wikipedia talk page Tony1 (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Guideline edits
Hi! Please consider the contents of Template:guideline before editing this project-wide guideline, especially the sentence "When editing this page, please ensure your revision is a reasonable reflection of community consensus." Have you suggested your changes on the talk page or on the Water cooler? -  Amgine | t 17:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * In general, edits to policy and guidelines of long-standing are discussed before editing. This is a courtesy to avoid policy edit-warring, and to actually gain consensus where there may be differences of opinion. Only one of the sentences you altered had a specific change in meaning moving from the passive voice to the active, and I sincerely doubt there will be any disagreement with the changes you propose, but it is preferable to discuss *first*, edit *later* when it comes to items such as the SG (which has, unfortunately, been the site of several large edit wars.) -  Amgine | t 17:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I have been responding on your talk page to your personal edits, and am currently being edit-conflicted by your edits to the article talk page. Please be considerate and allow another contributor the opportunity to reply, explain, or respond before complaining about their failure to do so. -  Amgine | t 17:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my heavens, sorry, but I can't be held responsible for your edit conflicts. Do not blame me. How was I meant to know what you were doing at your computer? Tony1 (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies, I did not intend to blame you for the edit conflicts, merely wished to point out that I was somewhat delayed in providing you gratification. I have since been able to respond to your comments on the talk page. I do suggest that you consider starting that introduction from scratch - there have been far too many cooks over the years (my first edits to it were in Jan 2005, and I was far from the first.) -  Amgine | t 17:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I have replied at the Style guide talkpage. -  Amgine | t 18:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replied at the Style guide talkpage. -  Amgine | t 18:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I have little opinion on your changes to the style guide, but I will say that you need to read this. "On" and "upon" are not interchangeable, even though they're sometimes used that way in slang writing. Along similar lines, the semicolon you removed was entirely proper. It was also unnecessary to add "an" before "emphasis" in order to make the sentence grammatically correct.

 * The original sentence flowed slightly better than the 2 you replaced it with, with two exceptions: the "so" should have been removed, and the "especially" should have been added. Thoughts do not necessarily have to be broken down into the smallest factored sentences possible; sometimes longer sentences that are constructed of 2 conjoined thoughts can be more effective at maintaining the pacing and flow of the paragraph. But yeah, the style guide could use a good copyedit:P. Gopher65talk 01:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
And by the way...

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
 * From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost

 * News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes

 * In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia

 * WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains

 * Features and admins: The best of the week

 * Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories

 * Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Query:
Do you have a problem statement? that is, what is measurably and identifiably broken. I ask this because I do not wish to become embroiled in any of your usual guerrilla war tactics. -  Amgine | t 16:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 *  Is this really the culture here? To be negative about any attempt to collaborate? I sense there's a distinct xenophobia about. I find it most unhealthy that you assume bad faith from the outset. I'd have thought the opening to the thread stated the problem well enough. The text could do with trimming—the removal of redundancy and repetition—and possibly a minor tweaking in the tone. Now, accusing a user, first off, of "you usual guerrilla war tactics", is pretty nasty, isn't it? Have I been nasty to you?
 * Nasty? no. Instantly assuming bad faith on the part of everyone who does not roll over and accept your edits as holy, yes, but I do not consider that nasty. Of course, you must realize when you first tromped into Wikinews:Style guide I checked out your edits WMF-wide, including fr.wp, en.wt, etc. It was a prudent course of action. I noted then your involvement in a couple of efforts to 'Americanize' various elements of the en.wp through the hobgoblin of standardization, and the tactics you used at that time. I also tried rather politely not to tear your contributions to little bits, even though they introduced nearly so many grammatical errors as they resolved. You and I are merely gifted dabblers; we should not consider ourselves authorities. For this reason I suggested you bring your *suggestions* to the talk page, rather than (as your first edits to a project) altering an accepted project policy which, incidentally, is usually in the top-ten linked online news style guides. -  Amgine | t 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I took a quick glance through your recent contribs; I don't know where Amgine's coming from (I expect xe'll explain shortly) on this, but that is about on par with what you're complaining about here. Pray tell, how was Diego to know that? It was the only edit from a then-unknown account. Xe's only trying to help, even if it wasn't helpful. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing text from a user page is not on, unless it's to protect against vandalism or outrageously offensive attack and the like. The protocol is to put a note on my page asking whether I requested the bot-post. People get very upset when others lumber in without asking and make significant changes to the text of others on their talk page. You would, too.
 * I'm done with this negative, personalised, attack-oriented discussion. I came here to deal with text: it's what I do. I'll be pleased to get back to improving the style guide. Tony1 (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't actually disagree with you, but just the same, xe was making the effort to help. I've watched Diego go from a guy I blocked on enwp to someone I was happy to support being allowed to return there. Tick him off by all means, but bear in mind it was well intentioned - even if it was a pain. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was a bit blunt. I will message him again to soften the situation. Tony1 (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Bluntness and brutal honesty does have its place, but in this case I think that was the the right way to go about it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I should still like you to give at least a sentence or two synopsis on why you believe edits to WN:SG are vital. -  Amgine | t 21:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to place flashing lights around what I wrote about how the text needs to be improved, but I've added a sentence that summarises key issues. More may arise, but that is up to people to debate. As for "vital", nothing much on Wikinews will cause loss of life; but where there's the opportunity and the will to improve important text, the work should be done. Tony1 (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was less-than precise enough for you: Why do you feel you need to edit WN:SG, since you neither use nor are affected by it? -  Amgine | t 19:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so much a matter of precision: you've changed the question. To answer your second issue first, I don't think you know whether I am "affected by" Wikinews, since you can't know whether I read it. I care a lot about it, because I see the rise of non-commercial Internet news as an exciting part of the Foundation's work in the light of the inevitable decline in the business model of broadsheets and other hard-copy daily news publications, and the apparent difficulty of paying for online news produced by commercial outlets.
 * The "Headlines" section looks good, but I will raise a few issues on the talk page soon—issues I can't by myself solve.
 * I would be pleased if others took the mantle in proposing copy-edits of at least some of the sections, but if that doesn't happen, I'll keep going. The opening, I think, required the most changes. Tony1 (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we will have to agree to disagree. Ime a problem statement must present the context, the "in what way am I the proposer related to the problem." Which, I note, you have still not addressed other than "I care a lot about it", something I hope we can agree is a somewhat vague reference. -  Amgine | t 02:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

 * You have, what I consider should be, the final response on the WN:SG talk. If it is unclear, make constructive contributions in the main namespace before going near policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection of AAA
Two admins replied to your recent comment: posts can be seen at Admin_action_alerts/Archive_6.

(By the way, I am not hiding your comments: I am archiving the whole thread, as it is off topic.)

--InfantGorilla (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it is very much on topic, as I've explained there. That you would archive calls by a number of editors for Mr McNeil to justify his involved admin action and his abusive behaviour exposes you to accusations of cover-up. Sorry, there it is. Transparency is the proper course of action. Tony1 (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that WN:AAA is the page used to alert admins, such as myself, to take action, such as speedy deleting a page, blocking a vandal etc. From what I have read of the events, I would suggest that this has now moved into the area of dispute resolution. This is not an attempt to sweep anything under the carpet, just an attempt to try and focus on the matter in hand. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

 * I've supposedly de-involved at least for the time being, but hopefuly I can help clarify this. The comments are not appropriate for that page. I've got no problems with this dicussion being had - just not there. (A side-nate is greater clarification of when such conversations cease to be appropriate for AAA may need put up somewhere...). I might suggest that linking to the archive and restarting from there may be better based on the sheer volume of material, rather than restore it somewhere, but I won't actually object to a simple restore to a more appropriate place. One apparently unintended consequence of chasing the discussion away without first regenerating it elswhere is that the conversation appears to have fragmented into many pieces. Obviously, it would be best if it were recentralised - which is, I think, something you'll agree with. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

You HAVE to get rid of Brian McNeil, and soon
The more you look at WN, the sadder it gets. Mr McNeil's recent abuse of me is clearly not an isolated case. Good people are leaving at an astonishing rate. Why?

Here's a staff expert from the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns this project:

 * I am gravely concerned about some of the quotes that I'm seeing from Brian. In particular, I believe that this comment is beyond the pale.  I'm embarrassed for our projects that someone in a leadership role left a message like that.  While there's no meta policy for civility, there is a moral requirement that we treat each other with kindness and respect.  I wish I could say that this is the first "slip up" of the type from Brian, but I can't help but see a pattern of uncivil discourse that is troubling from an acknowledged leader in this project.

 * I'm not going to try to tell this community how to treat it's own... but I strongly encourage you to think about how you want to be represented. These types of affairs are the ones that bubble up when people talk about bullying on our projects.  These are the ones that contribute to public perception.  Please know that I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, recent uncivil statements from Brian, particularly given what appears to be an ongoing and worsening problem.

 * Philippe Beaudette, Head of Reader Relations, Wikimedia Foundation.

Like, WOW. But no one, including BRS (who I see is climbing up the pole like everyone else to be a crat), nor Gorilla, nor Pi zero, nor Bawolff, nor Shakata, has the integrity to follow up on this.

Dudes, you have to get rid of Brian McNeil, and soon. Someone in a position of power and authority, a model for behaviour, who calls someone "You fucking ignorant bastard", is a serious liability for the whole of the Foundation. It begs the reptiles in FOXnews to do a nice little piece on it, dragging all of the projects down with it. Please do not let that happen. Tony1 (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Agreed. McNeil thinks Wikinews is run by him. But it is a Wiki and he drives talented people away be being so territorial and arrogant. Greg L (talk) 11:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your propensity to be offended by my existence
It is hardly appropriate to try and drag Graham into some dispute or other that you have with me.

You are clearly, and unambiguously, trolling people on Wikinews in a manner which could readily be construed as borderline libel and defamation; in addition to having the potential to become outright disruption.

You decided to start your contributions to Wikinews by editing policy; on the code of ethics and anonymous sources, your edits were perfectly reasonable. You then decided to tackle the project's style guide where your first edit introduced a typographical error, and your second edit to correct it removed relevant wiki markup. The talk page details associated grammatical errors said changes introduced.

Now, you've obviously still not found the relevant reference to The Other Place, which might explain your error in assuming such is a slur when we use the term for Wikipedia. Again, through cultural ignorance, you also assume I - and other Wikinews contributors - hate Wikipedia. Again, incorrect; it is Wikipedia's un-encyclopedic obsession with recent events which is vexing. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I am pretty offended by your existence, actually. It's your problem, not mine. Anything you can do to improve that situation? See my post at Graham's page. Tony1 (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. Now that's cleared up, maybe you'd like to share the rest of your little list, of people you'd not miss.
 * You are excellent at twisting other peoples' words, of pulling quotes out-of-context and generally inflicting yourself on other people in most-unwelcome ways.
 * Me? I'm usually abruptly blunt, abrasive and far-from-tolerant of idiocy.
 * That does not preclude praising good work where I see it from those who've otherwise pissed me off no-end.
 * Your comments on Graham's page aren't relevant; you're trying to talk to someone who has not edited here for over four months, and stopped abruptly for no apparent reason despite being in good standing and efforts made to welcome xe.
 * Is that me driving away good contributors? Or were you influential in Graham ceasing to contribute here? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what goes on in Graham's mind, but as you must be aware, there's a long list of good WN editors who have left after your abuse, which continues on in your latest post here. I suspect Graham doesn't think much of you; but why not ask him? You just don't get it, do you. Being nasty and negative to editors drives them away. And I see your little lackey Amgine doing your bidding below, of whom I had come to a very low opinion soon after I arrived here two years ago. It's all very sad that your fascist tendencies continue to hold sway over this site. Tony1 (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Graham87
Hi Tony1.

Generally, at Wikinews, we don't encourage co-opting a new user's talk page for an ongoing feud. I'm sure this is enough of a hint.

-  Amgine | t 18:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I will post where I wish, thank you very much. Stay off my talk page. Tony1 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You've had your fun now, Tony1. You've admitted to trolling, asked me to commit suicide, and you treat reality the way only a relative of Sean Hannity could. Like him, you only belong in a newsroom owned by News Corp. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not fun; disgust. And disappointment at the misallocation of donors' money. Tony1 (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add "calling me a facist" to your list of slurs. I assume, since you feel qualified to decide how donors' money (including mine) should - or should not - be used, you will be standing for trustee at the earliest possible opportunity? --Brian McNeil / talk 11:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Brian McNeil, this might be a tad over what we would want here... a hint is a hint, we do not have to fight for it. Gryllida 04:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 * No. For exactly the same reason you made above. Luckily I gave up my bits on this project, because your actions certainly warrant a cooling off period for you but as the target of your incivility I might possibly be open to an accusation of conflict of interest. Not that it would have stopped me in this case. I have faith in the project admins, however. Your attempts at cyberbullying have one redeeming characteristic for those without bits: entertainment. -  Amgine | t 21:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You both appear to be blind the to problem, which emanates from you, and not me. But keep externalising the blame if it makes you feel better. I have the advantage of not being part of your fascist empire. And Brian, you might have learnt that blocking someone for trumped-up reasons just ends up making you look bad. Have you ceased issuing insults such as "you fucking ignorant moron" (see above)? I certainly hope so. Tony1 (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I would concur with Amgine that we should at least try to be friendly to newcomers. Talk pages are intended to be used for feedback on users' actions and what Amgine did is entirely proper usage of a talk page. That said, I would encourage us all to not escalate or further dramatise this issue, and focus on news instead. Thank you. Gryllida 04:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Um ... you concur with the accusations of "cyberbullying", do you ... and the veiled threat to block me. Friendliness is the direct opposite of what I've experienced here, and you're showing that you're part of this very sick group-think. I just dropped in to en.WN because I was alerted to something by Graham. I thought I'd test the waters to see if the abusive mentality persists: answer is a resounding YES. My view of Wikinews is reconfirmed, which is all your problem, not mine.

Here's a WMF opinion that you all seem to have passed over, pasted in here from above, just to remind you. The appalling thing is that ... Brian McNeill is still here, master of the realm, chief bully handing out abuse.

 * I am gravely concerned about some of the quotes that I'm seeing from Brian. In particular, I believe that this comment is beyond the pale.  I'm embarrassed for our projects that someone in a leadership role left a message like that.  While there's no meta policy for civility, there is a moral requirement that we treat each other with kindness and respect.  I wish I could say that this is the first "slip up" of the type from Brian, but I can't help but see a pattern of uncivil discourse that is troubling from an acknowledged leader in this project.

 * I'm not going to try to tell this community how to treat it's own... but I strongly encourage you to think about how you want to be represented. These types of affairs are the ones that bubble up when people talk about bullying on our projects.  These are the ones that contribute to public perception.  Please know that I condemn, in the strongest possible terms, recent uncivil statements from Brian, particularly given what appears to be an ongoing and worsening problem.

 * Philippe Beaudette, Head of Reader Relations, Wikimedia Foundation.

Yup. Tony1 (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I have not expressed any opinion about the "the accusations of "cyberbullying", do you ... and the veiled threat to block me". They are something either in the past -- that one would normally forgive and forget -- or, if raised recently in this discussion, beyond its point.

 * This is the idea I was referring to, saying that I concur with it:

 * "Hi Tony1.

Generally, at Wikinews, we don't encourage co-opting a new user's talk page for an ongoing feud. I'm sure this is enough of a hint.

- <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine. t 18:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)"

 * I hardly see a need in the rest of this discussion -- all that was needed was that you see the quoted line and take it onboard. I currently have not expressed any opinion about the other statements of other people involved in this discussion. --Gryllida 21:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Tony1, nice of you to date-stamp your quoted remarks, I am sure Philippe fully approves of your use of them as a weapon (/sarcasm).
 * Since the departure of Tempodivalse to create the failed fork OpenGlobe, and remarks made over the serious dispute xe and I got into over a number of issues, particularly that implementing Assume Good Faith is antithetical to credible news production, I have made considerable efforts to be more reasonable and, in particular, to avoid language which results in those of a sensitive nature needing smelling salts.
 * Yet, as you see above Gryllida, friends of Tempo still work on the assumption my middle name is Benito. I am asked by Tony1 if I have stopped behaviour which xe is wilfully engaging in; one would think that inviting him to try contributing content here after a gap, despite his "Bull in a China Shop" meddling with the Style Guide, and subsequent acrimonious dispute with much of the community, might count as some evidence of such.
 * No. Apparently Tony1 doesn't do content, and holds a grudge on someone else's behalf.
 * Xyr comments here are made with one aim, xe wants a block which could be taken as unreasonable, as grounds to go to the Foundation and ask for Wikinews to be closed, because he does not like me.
 * It's that, or he truly, and honestly, does mean that he would like me to go and commit suicide. Xe has certainly not disputed that interpretation of his remarks, nor has xe disputed that his contributions here are intentional trolling.
 * In the two years since Tony1 cast his opinion of Wikinews in concrete, we've had two classes of journalism students work on-project as part of their coursework, xyr friend's fork has failed and bit the dust and, despite xe portraying the project - with me in any position whatsoever - being evil incarnate, pushed out 60+ articles on a major sporting event.
 * Wikinews' problem is not me; it is, as so-skillfully demonstrated above, people like Tony1 who never forget, and never forgive. What they never forgive is Wikinews not being a minor annex of Wikipedia.
 * I will ask one more time, since the comments of others permitted Tony1 to avoid giving an answer:
 * When, Tony1, do you intend to run for a WMF Trustee position so you can close down Wikinews?
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 05:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

All of this becomes overly overescalated, dramatised for a number of reasons.
 * You had talked to some of the people involved before -- brian mcneil and Amgine -- and it was odd experience, but you have to talk to them again; you feel that they may be biased and/or wrong. Sadly in a small community like Wikinews, you may have to talk to the same people more than once; not overreacting to such situation could be a good plan.
 * There is a mess here out of just a couple lines of yours on another user's talk page. We do not want you to plead guilty or anything here -- Amgine's original intention was that you see their concern, but they did not demand you to apologise or anything (while understanding and an apology would be a good plan, too!).
 * This is Internet. It is not easy to display the emotions and atmosphere behind every written message.

I am kindly asking two things.

 * That the people involved before attempt to take a break and try to not keep being confrontational here (as you already read the first message in this section, which would be about all I would personally want here.) I am sure that you have understood what others want, and proving who is right is beyond the point.
 * That all of us try to squash this issue and move our efforts to the primary namespace -- news.

Thanks. -Gryllida 07:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm flattered that I could be the centre of attention so easily. I never intended this. I have no time for it. So ... byeeee. Tony1 (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please calm down
I support this removal of a not very helpful remark from my user talk page. We are well aware of your opinion that Wikinews should be shut down. That is off-topic for this discussion. If you can't contribute constructively to a dialog then please leave everyone alone. For what it is worth, I think some of your concerns about Wikinews are valid, but I also think that if the community has aims other than to be a destination news site, then those concerns are not relevant.

If our standard is: does Wikinews produce something similar to the comprehensive and balanced front page coverage of major news sites, then of course Wikinews isn't working and isn't likely to work anytime soon. That's an interesting and valid point to make - once.

But what is emerging from the discussion, as far as I can tell, is that the community is happier with a different and potentially more achievable goal.

In any event, my point is that jumping in to hammer away on tired old points is not helpful. Please stop doing that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They're not tired; they're supported by a sizeable proportion of Wikimedians. Tony1 (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Being supported by a lot of people doesn't make them any less tired. :-) I do think it is a valid question as to whether or not Wikinews (or any project, frankly) should be shut down.  Even more interesting is to think philosophically about what processes or procedures ought to be the norm when thinking about project openings and closures.  But all of that is completely off topic for the discussion at hand, which is about chewing on what the overall purpose is of Wikinews, as seen by the passionate contributors themselves, to see if there are interesting ways to move forward which will be beneficial for the project.  Simply repeating in an angry tone the arguments that it should be shut down ignores something very important.  (This is particularly true if the criteria being used to make the decision are incorrect!)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Er, I think the trigger in this case might have been the word "meetups". If you look at Tony's edit again, you can see he talks about translation bureaus (which it looks like Brian McNeil has already responded to), and the use of WMF funds, although I'm not sure what "application" he is talking about.

 * I did note that the original invitation to participate was for "currently active Wikinewsies, as well as of people who are critical of Wikinews". I did not intend to participate further myself, as I do not consider myself to be either one.  My role is generally to summarize and to break down chunks of information into digestible pieces.

 * My take of the current progress of the discussion is that it is in a "brainstorming" phase, where any and all ideas must be welcomed without evaluation, especially negative evaluation, since that can choke off the flow of ideas. That said, it's difficult to understand what the ground rules here are, since the discussion itself is on a talk page, which is where any meta-discussion is usually carried out in order to avoid sidetracking the main discussion.

 * It is indeed interesting to see the participants' focus on inputs. I have for some time had the idea that the Wikinews people were interested in that project from an educational standpoint...as a place to polish their writing or English or some other skills.  That is certainly one of the things I value most about my current relationship with the Signpost--the opportunity to work alongside people perceived as having certain skill sets, and was also a motivating factor in my previous involvement with en.wiki.

 * –Neotarf (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tony1


text:
Two pilots dead in Richmond plane crash

July 11, 2009

A plane, carrying blood donations, crashed in Richmond, British Columbia, Canada on Thursday night. The plane, a twin engine PA-31 Piper Navajo departed from Victoria, when it nosedived into a parking lot during its final approach to Vancouver International Airport shortly after 10:00 p.m. PDT (UTC-7).

Witnesses report the plane flying unusually low prior to it crashing and bursting into flames by Bridgeport Road, behind a large Ikea store.

"The plane engine sounded real low, it came almost straight down," according to The Vancouver Sun who asked witness Darren Van Leeuwen. "The flames shot up 100 feet or more."

Both of the pilots on-board were killed, it not yet known if there were any other passengers. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Assistant Commissioner Peter German stated that it was very lucky that nobody on the ground was killed.

The cause of the crash is under federal investigation.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Two pilots dead in Richmond plane crash


text:
User talk:Tofubird

Welcome
--SVTCobra 23:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tofubird


text:
NHC upgrades Tropical Depression Four-E to Tropical Storm Carlos

July 11, 2009

The United States (NHC) has upgraded Tropical Depression Four-E to tropical storm status. The storm, now officially Tropical Storm Carlos, is the third named storm of the 2009 hurricane season.

The storm currently has maximum sustained winds of 40 miles per hour, with slightly higher gusts. Carlos is located about 910 miles south-southwest of Baja California, Mexico, and is currently tracking west at 14 miles per hour. Minimum barometric pressure is 1005 millibars.

A fairly small and well-organized storm, Carlos is expected to strengthen into a hurricane as it continues westward, the NHC reports.


text: User:Stmrlbs

title: User:Stmrlbs


text:
User talk:Stmrlbs

test test test

title: User talk:Stmrlbs


text: Talk:NHC upgrades Tropical Depression Four-E to Tropical Storm Carlos


text:
User talk:41.221.140.173

Hello
This is Wikinews. We do not do biographies. You may be looking for Wikipedia. --SVTCobra 01:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:41.221.140.173


text: Talk:Two pilots dead in Richmond plane crash


text:
User talk:Psbsub

Calebrw (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Psbsub


text:
User talk:Thomas Paine1776

Calebrw (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thomas Paine1776


text:
User talk:Bigbaderik~enwikinews

Calebrw (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Bigbaderik. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Bigbaderik~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bigbaderik~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Bfbggonnn

Calebrw (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bfbggonnn


text:
User talk:Tenderlivity

Calebrw (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tenderlivity


text:
User talk:Foxmom36

Calebrw (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Foxmom36


text:
User talk:Swag~enwikinews

Calebrw (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Swag. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Swag~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Swag~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Tigerdicky

Calebrw (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tigerdicky


text:
Roller skating babies become YouTube sensation

July 11, 2009 Registering 5,081,441 views in the past week alone, an international advertisement featuring roller-skating babies has become a YouTube sensation. French and US versions of the advert for Evian mineral water have also seen 500,000 and 1.5 million visitor hits respectively.

"It's one of the cutest things I've ever seen," said one YouTube viewer. Reviewer Saul Relative says, "You'll find yourself watching this feel good video commercial again and again."

The babies roller-skate to a remix of The Sugarhill Gang's top 40 hip hop single Rapper's Delight.

Euro RSCG began the web video campaign on Friday, July 3. The advertisement has been aired on television in France, Belgium, and Canada. "It's working so well virally that plans for TV in the UK are still under review," said an Evian representative.


text:
New words added to Webster's dictionary

July 11, 2009 Merriam–Webster announced that it has added over a hundred new words to the pages of its Collegiate Dictionary. Notable among these additions include: webisode, a television episode viewed from the web; staycation, a vacation that occurs near one's home; and vlog, a form of blog that features videos.

Two recurring themes among the new words included "government activities" and words of Arabic origin. The term "waterboarding" reflected the former theme, and was defined as "an interrogation technique in which water is forced into a detainee's mouth and nose so as to induce the sensation of drowning".

The practice has been used on detainees at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and its usage has drawn criticism from legal experts and human rights advocates who consider it to be a form of torture. Webster's does not include the word "torture" as part of its definition.

The latter theme was represented by such terms as shawarma, a Middle-Eastern sandwich, and Haram, which means forbidden under Islamic law.

Other additions included carbon footprint, green collar, and zip line.

title: New words added to Webster's dictionary


text:
Talk:New words added to Webster's dictionary

Categories
I don't find it particularly nice to see categories used as a form of POV-pushing. This article had been put in Category:Islam. That ain't right. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I must have missed that one. There were even more earlier.--SVTCobra 13:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reason it was placed in the category was because of the word Haram. --William Saturn (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Roller skating babies become YouTube sensation

Newsworthy
This is something to share on facebook or twitter, not glorify with a news story. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * How much money are we getting from Evian to promote their CGI advertisement? --SVTCobra 10:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Agreed. Even if major media outlets are fooled into covering it, it does not necessarily mean it is news. --Killing Vector (talk) 16:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Meh. It's fluff, but it is news (kinda barely). I could see CNN doing a segment on this, it would be like 3 minutes long too.  We don't all have to like it, but it is "news".  He did source _main stream_ news.  -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 16:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, this definitely isn't newsworthy. – Juliancolton  | Talk 19:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Even if the news networks decide to do an "On the lighter side of things" feature, Wikinews was not designed to promote corporate mini-memes. Matt White (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Listed at DR (hopefully correctly!) – Juliancolton  | Talk 19:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Moved from article space. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 20:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 * dr removed, article kept per vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


text:
Comments:New words added to Webster's dictionary

webisode?
Good grief! Even the dictionary writers have gone Web 2.0! "webisode"? Have you ever used this retarded word before? It isn't even pleasant to say. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just remembered... Webster's is a mere Lexicon. If you want a dictionary you use the OED. :-P --Brian McNeil / talk 10:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

'Staycation'? I can honestly say I've never heard that word before in my entire life. --78.149.147.177 (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

nice pic
sweet pic of some stupid hippie being waterboarded by some tool, the terrorist who get this treatment kill people, men, women, children- so all you hippies out there lets take a second adn de-bunch our undergarments

-205.142.178.36 (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)bhoad

Comments from feedback form - "Not much info, nice imformatio..."
Not much info, nice imformation, could do with a bit of colour, it doesn't stand out and make people want to read it. —124.197.18.22 (talk) 06:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "Foxygen"
Foxygen —70.122.69.120 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "I hope u can give more words."
I hope u can give more words. —121.96.196.181 (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "dredging"
dredging —122.164.50.193 (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


text:
Space Shuttle Endeavour's launchpad struck by lightning delaying launch

July 11, 2009 The launch of Endeavour has been delayed at least 24 hours after the shuttle's launchpad area was struck by lightning at least 11 times this afternoon. According to NASA, technicians are currently evaluating the incident, but so far there appears to be no major damage.

"Sensors indicated there were 11 lightning strikes within 0.35 miles, which is inside the launch pad's threshold," said a statement on NASA's website. "The Mission Management Team will meet at 8:00 a.m. (EDT) Sunday to evaluate the latest data," it added.

"We've seen nothing so far that shows anything affected any of the systems. We need to be 100 percent confident that we have a good system across the board," said chairman of the pre-launch Mission Management Team, Mike Moses. None of the strikes hit the external fuel tank or the rocket boosters, but "there were strikes to the lightning mast and water tower," added NASA. Two of the strikes were strong enough to trigger an evaluation by engineers just to make sure all of Endeavour's systems are ready for flight. Although early evaluations showed no problems, engineers wanted more time to make sure they have checked everything correctly.

A new launch date is set for Sunday evening at 7:13 p.m. (EDT). The shuttle was previously scheduled to lift off at 7:39 this evening after two previous delays in June which were caused by a hydrogen fuel leak.

The mission, STS-127, will feature five spacewalks and complete construction of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency's Kibo laboratory. Astronauts will attach a platform to the outside of the Japanese module that will allow experiments to be exposed to space.


text: Talk:Space Shuttle Endeavour's launchpad struck by lightning delaying launch


text:
Comments:Roller skating babies becomes YouTube sensation

This isn't news. Please stop posting this shit. 70.153.109.200 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


text:
Template talk:Hurricane 2009 Infobox

This infobox is now too long. Most articles on tropical cyclones won't reach halfway down it. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – Juliancolton  | Talk 23:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We cant do anything about that im afraid as you have 11 TC seasons in a standard year (Jan to Dec) 6 in the SHEM, 5 in the NHEM. Also i would suggest this gets moved back to TC as the term Hurricane is only used in two basins of the seven we have. We should also have unifomity across all projects Jason Rees (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing "hurricane" to "tropical cyclone" would be a project-wide change, as it would affect dozens of categories and templates. – Juliancolton  | Talk 23:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So lets do it - if they have set it up wrong it is our duty to correct it Jason Rees (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Hurricane 2009 Infobox


text:
User talk:Jason Rees

Welcome
--Brian McNeil / talk 23:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jason Rees


text:
Comments:Major fire reported in Soho, London

At least it isn't a repeat of that other London fire.


text:
User:Jason Rees

If you need me - either contact me on my talkpage here or on Wikipedia EN

title: User:Jason Rees


text:
Comments:Roller skating babies become YouTube sensation

So every time a youtube video gets more than 3 million hits, it becomes newsworthy?
 * I said something along the same lines, but my comment was apparently deleted and purged from the database. Gee. 70.153.109.200 (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been some server issues as of late, so apologies for the inconvenience. – Juliancolton  | Talk 00:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder the very same thing? How is this front page worthy? -24.56.50.250 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, welcome our new irrelevant Youtube video overlords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.141.127 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 * This is a just and only minor youtube sensation at best, other videos have 50+ million views compared to just 4 million here. Also just how is this news worthy? 71.107.251.15 (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I call viral marketing. Someone from that company is wasting our time with this dribble on the off chance we buy that crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.114.120 (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw it today and raged, not knowing people were calling it a "youtube sensation". --Phil1988 (talk) 03:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "this fucking sucks shit"
this fucking sucks shit —142.103.175.203 (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


text:
Comments:Two pilots dead in Richmond plane crash

What a terrible quote. The engine sounded very low, and the plane came straight down? Either it was flying low or it came straight down, one or the other. Poorly written article.

 * Is it not possible to nose-dive from low altitude then? IMHO the only confusion is as to whether the engine "sounding low" indicates possible engine failure or that the plane sounded close to the ground. We editors cannot be responsible for the quality of quotes coming from eye witnesses though and it certainly doesn't make an article poorly written. Bottom line: if it's the only available eye witness account then I say leave it in. Shane.Bell (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yikes... I hope it was ok... The people donated blood for nothing. -205.250.179.37 (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


text:
User:Dyrwk

Someone you probably don't shouldn't really care anything about.

But if you are curious, and think you want to know more, I must first ask, "Do you really wanna know?"

title: User:Dyrwk


text:
User:Self-ref

= Profile = Real name: nagasiva yronwode Online name: self-ref Age: 47 DOB: October 25, 1961 Location: Forestville, California

= WIKI PROJECT DETAILS =

Contributions, Essays and Projects
Wikipedia

  Cultural Struggle Surrounding Esoteric Topics in Wikipedia  Good Faith Page-Policy  Good Faith Page-Policy Userbox

For namespace planning efforts at Wikipedia: see MaGI Wiki  For reference in revising the Satanism page at Wikipedia, see Satanism Sources

Pseudonyms

 * "self-ref" in Wikipedia projects because of the controversy which surrounds personal references in Wikipedia, and the intriguing recursive nature of the pseudonym.

 * "nocTifer" in KIAwiki because of the likelihood of being called upon to represent the infernal, wrathful, and dark aspects of life and universe to those who might be encountered therein.

title: User:Self-ref


text:
Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2009/29

Welcome to the Wikinews World News Quiz, giving you a chance to test your knowledge on this week's news.

Last Updated: July 12, 2009

title: Wikinews:Dynamic quiz/quiz/2009/29


text:
User talk:Self-ref

Welcome
--Brian McNeil / talk 10:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Linking to Wikipedia can be done by prefixing the wikilink with w: --Brian McNeil / talk 10:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Typos
In response to your edit request on the article Satanism: An interview with Chu...: normally you point these out on a talk page. However, after an article has been archived people don't regularly visit it's talk page. You can either ask for help from an administrator — archived pages are protected, so only an admin can edit them — or you can place the editprotected template on the article's talk page. This will draw admin attention to your request.

Also, when you're leaving notices on people's User pages, leave them on the talk page (AKA "collaboration" page) instead of on their user page;).

Thanks for pointing out that typo; I fixed it:). It's amazing how long some of these little errors can go on undetected, even in a much read article like that one. Gopher65talk 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

title: User talk:Self-ref


text: User talk:201.24.7.114

title: User talk:201.24.7.114


text:
Firefighter killed while tackling pub blaze in Edinburgh, Scotland

July 12, 2009

A Scottish firefighter has died while helping to put out a fire at a pub in Edinburgh. Ewan Williamson, 35, died when the floor collapsed of the multi-story building. The Balmoral Bar, where the fire broke out was situated in the basement of the building. A second firefighter was injured but later released from hospital.

Chief fire officer Brian Allaway said two firefighters were injured by a collapse of an internal floor. He added “tragically and despite the best efforts of all his colleagues at the incident one of those firefighters lost his life” He continued to offer the thoughts of “every single firefighter” to the family.

The Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service were called at 00:38 BST with reports of a severe fire at the pub. More than 20 people had to be rescued by firefighters including a baby. A full investigation is due to take place. The police commented saying it was too early to determine whether there was anything suspicious with the blaze.

The fire was still alight on Sunday morning with around 70 firefighters continuing to tackle the blaze.


text: Talk:Firefighter killed while tackling pub blaze in Edinburgh, Scotland


text:
Former president Rafsanjani to lead Friday Iran prayers

July 12, 2009

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the pragmatic-conservative Iranian politician, head of Iran's Expediency Council and former president of Iran, will lead Friday prayers in Tehran on July 17, according to Mir-Hossain Mousavi's Facebook page.

Although the content of Ayatollah Rafsanjani's sermon is not yet known, the former Iranian president, a member of Iran's pragmatic-conservative faction and the richest person in Iran, is widely thought to be a "behind-the-scenes" supporter of Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Members of Rafsanjani's family have been arrested during the course of the unrest, which has been ongoing for a month.

Rafsanjani is one of five high-ranking clerics, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who lead prayers in Tehran on a rotating basis; Rafsanjani however has refused to lead prayers for two weeks running, while at the same time he has visited Iraqi Shi'ite leader Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Najaf, leading to speculation as to whether and in what way Rafsanjani would move against Khamenei and the Iranian regime.

Over the past several weeks since the results of the disputed 2009 Iran election were announced, sermons during Friday prayers have been used by powerful figures in the Iranian religious government to make statements of policy. On June 19, Khamenei used Friday prayers to call for an end to protests against President Ahmadinejad; a call by Ahmad Khatami at Friday prayers one week later meanwhile called for the protesters to be dealt with "severely and ruthlessly", accusing them of being against God and saying that they deserved capital punishment.


text:
User:RP459

HI!

title: User:RP459


text:
Talk:Former president Rafsanjani to lead Friday Iran prayers

Scoop
I'd just like to note, for the record, that we beat the LA Times, the New York Times, and Press TV at getting this story out :-D Thanks DragonFire for prompt publishing.

--Killing Vector (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


text:
U.K. National Portrait Gallery threatens U.S. citizen with legal action over Wikimedia images

July 14, 2009

The English National Portrait Gallery (NPG) in London has threatened on Friday to sue a U.S. citizen, Derrick Coetzee. The legal letter followed claims that he had breached the Gallery's copyright in several thousand photographs of works of art uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons, a free online media repository. In a letter from their solicitors sent to Coetzee via electronic mail, the NPG asserted that it holds copyright in the photographs under U.K. law, and demanded that Coetzee provide various undertakings and remove all of the images from the site (referred to in the letter as "the Wikipedia website").

Wikimedia Commons is a repository of free-to-use media, run by a community of volunteers from around the world, and is a sister project to Wikinews and the encyclopedia Wikipedia. Coetzee, who contributes to the Commons using the account "Dcoetzee", had uploaded images that are free for public use under United States law, where he and the website are based. However copyright is claimed to exist in the country where the gallery is situated.

The complaint by the NPG is that under UK law, its copyright in the photographs of its portraits is being violated. While the gallery has complained to the Wikimedia Foundation for a number of years, this is the first direct threat of legal action made against an actual uploader of images. In addition to the allegation that Coetzee had violated the NPG's copyright, they also allege that Coetzee had, by uploading thousands of images in bulk, infringed the NPG's database right, breached a contract with the NPG; and circumvented a copyright protection mechanism on the NPG's web site.

The copyright protection mechanism referred to is Zoomify, a product of Zoomify, Inc. of Santa Cruz, California. NPG's solicitors stated in their letter that "Our client used the Zoomify technology to protect our client’s copyright in the high resolution images.". Zoomify Inc. states in the Zoomify support documentation that its product is intended to make copying of images "more difficult" by breaking the image into smaller pieces and disabling the option within many web browsers to click and save images, but that they "provide Zoomify as a viewing solution and not an image security system".

In particular, Zoomify's website comments that while "many customers — famous museums for example" use Zoomify, in their experience a "general consensus" seems to exist that most museums are concerned with making the images in their galleries accessible to the public, rather than preventing the public from accessing them or making copies; they observe that a desire to prevent high resolution images being distributed would also imply prohibiting the sale of any posters or production of high quality printed material that could be scanned and placed online.

The NPG's history of actions
Other actions in the past have come directly from the NPG, rather than via solicitors. For example, several edits have been made directly to the English-language Wikipedia from the IP address 217.207.85.50, one of sixteen such IP addresses assigned to computers at the NPG by its ISP, Easynet.

In the period from August 2005 to July 2006 an individual within the NPG using that IP address acted to remove the use of several Wikimedia Commons pictures from articles in Wikipedia, including removing an image of the Chandos portrait, which the NPG has had in its possession since 1856, from Wikipedia's biographical article on William Shakespeare.

Other actions included adding notices to the pages for images, and to the text of several articles using those images, such as the following edit to Wikipedia's article on Catherine of Braganza and to its page for the Wikipedia Commons image of Branwell Brontë's portrait of his sisters:

 * "THIS IMAGE IS BEING USED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER."
 * "This image is copyright material and must not be reproduced in any way without permission of the copyright holder. Under current UK copyright law, there is copyright in skilfully executed photographs of ex-copyright works, such as this painting of Catherine de Braganza.
 * The original painting belongs to the National Portrait Gallery, London. For copies, and permission to reproduce the image, please contact the Gallery at picturelibrary@npg.org.uk or via our website at www.npg.org.uk"

Other, later, edits, made on the day that NPG's solicitors contacted Coetzee and drawn to the NPG's attention by Wikinews, are currently the subject of an internal investigation within the NPG.

Letter received
Coetzee published the contents of the letter on Saturday July 11, the letter itself being dated the previous day. It had been sent electronically to an email address associated with his Wikimedia Commons user account. The NPG's solicitors had mailed the letter from an account in the name "Amisquitta". This account was blocked shortly after by a user with access to the user blocking tool, citing a long standing Wikipedia policy that the making of legal threats and creation of a hostile environment is generally inconsistent with editing access and is an inappropriate means of resolving user disputes.

The policy, initially created on Commons' sister website in June 2004, is also intended to protect all parties involved in a legal dispute, by ensuring that their legal communications go through proper channels, and not through a wiki that is open to editing by other members of the public. It was originally formulated primarily to address legal action for libel. In October 2004 it was noted that there was "no consensus" whether legal threats related to copyright infringement would be covered but by the end of 2006 the policy had reached a consensus that such threats (as opposed to polite complaints) were not compatible with editing access while a legal matter was unresolved. Commons' own website states that "[accounts] used primarily to create a hostile environment for another user may be blocked".

In a further response, Gregory Maxwell, a volunteer administrator on Wikimedia Commons, made a formal request to the editorial community that Coetzee's access to administrator tools on Commons should be revoked due to the prevailing circumstances. Maxwell noted that Coetzee "[did] not have the technically ability to permanently delete images", but stated that Coetzee's potential legal situation created a conflict of interest.

Sixteen minutes after Maxwell's request, Coetzee's "administrator" privileges were removed by a user in response to the request. Coetzee retains "administrator" privileges on the English-language Wikipedia, since none of the images exist on Wikipedia's own website and therefore no conflict of interest exists on that site.

Legal issues
Legally, the central issue upon which the case depends is that copyright laws vary between countries. Under United States case law, where both the website and Coetzee are located, a photograph of a non-copyrighted two-dimensional picture (such as a very old portrait) is not capable of being copyrighted, and it may be freely distributed and used by anyone. Under UK law that point has not yet been decided, and the Gallery's solicitors state that such photographs could potentially be subject to copyright in that country.

One major legal point upon which a case would hinge, should the NPG proceed to court, is a question of originality. The U.K.'s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 defines in ¶ 1(a) that copyright is a right that subsists in "original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works" (emphasis added). The legal concept of originality here involves the simple origination of a work from an author, and does not include the notions of novelty or innovation that is often associated with the non-legal meaning of the word.

Whether an exact photographic reproduction of a work is an original work will be a point at issue. The NPG asserts that an exact photographic reproduction of a copyrighted work in another medium constitutes an original work, and this would be the basis for its action against Coetzee. This view has some support in U.K. case law. The decision of Walter v Lane held that exact transcriptions of speeches by journalists, in shorthand on reporter's notepads, were original works, and thus copyrightable in themselves. The opinion by Hugh Laddie, Justice Laddie, in his book The Modern Law of Copyright, points out that photographs lie on a continuum, and that photographs can be simple copies, derivative works, or original works:

 * "[…] it is submitted that a person who makes a photograph merely by placing a drawing or painting on the glass of a photocopying machine and pressing the button gets no copyright at all; but he might get a copyright if he employed skill and labour in assembling the thing to be photocopied, as where he made a montage."

Various aspects of this continuum have already been explored in the courts. Justice Neuberger, in the decision at Antiquesportfolio.com v Rodney Fitch & Co. held that a photograph of a three-dimensional object would be copyrightable if some exercise of judgement of the photographer in matters of angle, lighting, film speed, and focus were involved. That exercise would create an original work. Justice Oliver similarly held, in Interlego v Tyco Industries, that "[i]t takes great skill, judgement and labour to produce a good copy by painting or to produce an enlarged photograph from a positive print, but no-one would reasonably contend that the copy, painting, or enlargement was an 'original' artistic work in which the copier is entitled to claim copyright. Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality.".

In 2000 the Museums Copyright Group, a copyright lobbying group, commissioned a report and legal opinion on the implications of the Bridgeman case for the UK, which stated:

 * "Revenue raised from reproduction fees and licensing is vital to museums to support their primary educational and curatorial objectives. Museums also rely on copyright in photographs of works of art to protect their collections from inaccurate reproduction and captioning... as a matter of principle, a photograph of an artistic work can qualify for copyright protection in English law". The report concluded by advocating that "museums must continue to lobby" to protect their interests, to prevent inferior quality images of their collections being distributed, and "not least to protect a vital source of income".

Several people and organizations in the U.K. have been awaiting a test case that directly addresses the issue of copyrightability of exact photographic reproductions of works in other media. The commonly cited legal case Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. found that there is no originality where the aim and the result is a faithful and exact reproduction of the original work. The case was heard twice in New York, once applying UK law and once applying US law. It cited the prior UK case of Interlego v Tyco Industries (1988) in which Lord Oliver stated that "Skill, labour or judgement merely in the process of copying cannot confer originality."

 * "What is important about a drawing is what is visually significant and the re-drawing of an existing drawing [...] does not make it an original artistic work, however much labour and skill may have gone into the process of reproduction [...]"

The Interlego judgement had itself drawn upon another UK case two years earlier, Coca-Cola Go's Applications, in which the House of Lords drew attention to the "undesirability" of plaintiffs seeking to expand intellectual property law beyond the purpose of its creation in order to create an "undeserving monopoly". It commented on this, that "To accord an independent artistic copyright to every such reproduction would be to enable the period of artistic copyright in what is, essentially, the same work to be extended indefinitely... "

The Bridgeman case concluded that whether under UK or US law, such reproductions of copyright-expired material were not capable of being copyrighted.

The unsuccessful plaintiff, Bridgeman Art Library, stated in 2006 in written evidence to the House of Commons Committee on Culture, Media and Sport that it was "looking for a similar test case in the U.K. or Europe to fight which would strengthen our position".

The parties
The National Portrait Gallery is a non-departmental public body based in London England and sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Founded in 1856, it houses a collection of portraits of historically important and famous British people. The gallery contains more than 11,000 portraits and 7,000 light-sensitive works in its Primary Collection, 320,000 in the Reference Collection, over 200,000 pictures and negatives in the Photographs Collection and a library of around 35,000 books and manuscripts. (More on the National Portrait Gallery here)

The gallery's solicitors are Farrer & Co LLP, of London. Farrer's clients have notably included the British Royal Family, in a case related to extracts from letters sent by Diana, Princess of Wales which were published in a book by ex-butler Paul Burrell. (In that case, the claim was deemed unlikely to succeed, as the extracts were not likely to be in breach of copyright law.)

Farrer & Co have close ties with industry interest groups related to copyright law. Peter Wienand, Head of Intellectual Property at Farrer & Co., is a member of the Executive body of the Museums Copyright Group, which is chaired by Tom Morgan, Head of Rights and Reproductions at the National Portrait Gallery. The Museums Copyright Group acts as a lobbying organization for "the interests and activities of museums and galleries in the area of [intellectual property rights]", which reacted strongly against the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. case.

Wikimedia Commons is a repository of images, media, and other material free for use by anyone in the world. It is operated by a community of 21,000 active volunteers, with specialist rights such as deletion and blocking restricted to around 270 experienced users in the community (known as "administrators") who are trusted by the community to use them to enact the wishes and policies of the community. Commons is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, a charitable body whose mission is to make available free knowledge and historic and other material which is legally distributable under US law. (More on Commons here)

Moral and public policy issues
The legal threat also sparked discussions of moral issues and issues of public policy in several Internet discussion fora, including Slashdot, over the weekend. One major public policy issue relates to how the public domain should be preserved.

Some of the public policy debate over the weekend has echoed earlier opinions presented by Kenneth Hamma, the executive director for Digital Policy at the J. Paul Getty Trust. Writing in D-Lib Magazine in November 2005, Hamma observed:

 * "Art museums and many other collecting institutions in this country hold a trove of public-domain works of art. These are works whose age precludes continued protection under copyright law. The works are the result of and evidence for human creativity over thousands of years, an activity museums celebrate by their very existence. For reasons that seem too frequently unexamined, many museums erect barriers that contribute to keeping quality images of public domain works out of the hands of the general public, of educators, and of the general milieu of creativity. In restricting access, art museums effectively take a stand against the creativity they otherwise celebrate. This conflict arises as a result of the widely accepted practice of asserting rights in the images that the museums make of the public domain works of art in their collections."

He also stated:

 * "This resistance to free and unfettered access may well result from a seemingly well-grounded concern: many museums assume that an important part of their core business is the acquisition and management of rights in art works to maximum return on investment. That might be true in the case of the recording industry, but it should not be true for nonprofit institutions holding public domain art works; it is not even their secondary business. Indeed, restricting access seems all the more inappropriate when measured against a museum's mission — a responsibility to provide public access. Their charitable, financial, and tax-exempt status demands such. The assertion of rights in public domain works of art — images that at their best closely replicate the values of the original work — differs in almost every way from the rights managed by the recording industry. Because museums and other similar collecting institutions are part of the private nonprofit sector, the obligation to treat assets as held in public trust should replace the for-profit goal. To do otherwise, undermines the very nature of what such institutions were created to do."

Hamma observed in 2005 that "[w]hile examples of museums chasing down digital image miscreants are rare to non-existent, the expectation that museums might do so has had a stultifying effect on the development of digital image libraries for teaching and research."

The NPG, which has been taking action with respect to these images since at least 2005, is a public body. It was established by Act of Parliament, the current Act being the Museums and Galleries Act 1992. In that Act, the NPG Board of Trustees is charged with maintaining "a collection of portraits of the most eminent persons in British history, of other works of art relevant to portraiture and of documents relating to those portraits and other works of art". It also has the tasks of "secur[ing] that the portraits are exhibited to the public" and "generally promot[ing] the public's enjoyment and understanding of portraiture of British persons and British history through portraiture both by means of the Board's collection and by such other means as they consider appropriate".

Several commentators have questioned how the NPG's statutory goals align with its threat of legal action. Mike Masnick, founder of Techdirt, asked "The people who run the Gallery should be ashamed of themselves. They ought to go back and read their own mission statement[. …] How, exactly, does suing someone for getting those portraits more attention achieve that goal?" (external link Masnick's). L. Sutherland of Bigmouthmedia asked "As the paintings of the NPG technically belong to the nation, does that mean that they should also belong to anyone that has access to a computer?"

Other public policy debates that have been sparked have included the applicability of U.K. courts, and U.K. law, to the actions of a U.S. citizen, residing in the U.S., uploading files to servers hosted in the U.S.. Two major schools of thought have emerged. Both see the issue as encroachment of one legal system upon another. But they differ as to which system is encroaching. One view is that the free culture movement is attempting to impose the values and laws of the U.S. legal system, including its case law such as Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., upon the rest of the world. Another view is that a U.K. institution is attempting to control, through legal action, the actions of a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil.

David Gerard, former Press Officer for Wikimedia UK, the U.K. chapter of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has been involved with the "Wikipedia Loves Art" contest to create free content photographs of exhibits at the Victoria and Albert Museum, stated on Slashdot that "The NPG actually acknowledges in their letter that the poster's actions were entirely legal in America, and that they're making a threat just because they think they can. The Wikimedia community and the WMF are absolutely on the side of these public domain images remaining in the public domain. The NPG will be getting radioactive publicity from this. Imagine the NPG being known to American tourists as somewhere that sues Americans just because it thinks it can."

Benjamin Crowell, a physics teacher at Fullerton College in California, stated that he had received a letter from the Copyright Officer at the NPG in 2004, with respect to the picture of the portrait of Isaac Newton used in his physics textbooks, that he publishes in the U.S. under a free content copyright licence, to which he had replied with a pointer to Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp..

The Wikimedia Foundation takes a similar stance. Erik Möller, the Deputy Director of the US-based Wikimedia Foundation wrote in 2008 that "we've consistently held that faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works which are nothing more than reproductions should be considered public domain for licensing purposes".

National Portrait Gallery statement
Contacted over the weekend, the NPG issued a statement to Wikinews:

 * "The National Portrait Gallery is very strongly committed to giving access to its Collection. In the past five years the Gallery has spent around £1 million digitising its Collection to make it widely available for study and enjoyment. We have so far made available on our website more than 60,000 digital images, which have attracted millions of users, and we believe this extensive programme is of great public benefit.

 * "The Gallery supports Wikipedia in its aim of making knowledge widely available and we would be happy for the site to use our low-resolution images, sufficient for most forms of public access, subject to safeguards. However, in March 2009 over 3000 high-resolution files were appropriated from the National Portrait Gallery website and published on Wikipedia without permission.

 * "The Gallery is very concerned that potential loss of licensing income from the high-resolution files threatens its ability to reinvest in its digitisation programme and so make further images available. It is one of the Gallery’s primary purposes to make as much of the Collection available as possible for the public to view.

 * "Digitisation involves huge costs including research, cataloguing, conservation and highly-skilled photography. Images then need to be made available on the Gallery website as part of a structured and authoritative database. To date, Wikipedia has not responded to our requests to discuss the issue and so the National Portrait Gallery has been obliged to issue a lawyer’s letter. The Gallery remains willing to enter into a dialogue with Wikipedia.

In fact, Matthew Bailey, the Gallery's (then) Assistant Picture Library Manager, had already once been in a similar dialogue. Ryan Kaldari, an amateur photographer from Nashville, Tennessee, who also volunteers at the Wikimedia Commons, states that he was in correspondence with Bailey in October 2006. In that correspondence, according to Kaldari, he and Bailey failed to conclude any arrangement.

Wikimedia Foundation comment
Jay Walsh, the Head of Communications for the Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts the Commons, called the gallery's actions "unfortunate" in the Foundation's statement, issued on Tuesday July 14:

 * "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally. To that end, we have very productive working relationships with a number of galleries, archives, museums and libraries around the world, who join with us to make their educational materials available to the public.

 * "The Wikimedia Foundation does not control user behavior, nor have we reviewed every action taken by that user. Nonetheless, it is our general understanding that the user in question has behaved in accordance with our mission, with the general goal of making public domain materials available via our Wikimedia Commons project, and in accordance with applicable law."

The Foundation added in its statement that as far as it was aware, the NPG had not attempted "constructive dialogue", and that the volunteer community was presently discussing the matter independently.

Digital Britain and making the paintings at the NPG available
In part, the lack of past agreement may have been because of a misunderstanding by the National Portrait Gallery of Commons and Wikipedia's free content mandate; and of the differences between Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, the Wikimedia Commons, and the individual volunteer workers who participate on the various projects supported by the Foundation.

Like Coetzee, Ryan Kaldari is a volunteer worker who does not represent Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Commons. (Such representation is impossible. Both Wikipedia and the Commons are endeavours supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, and not organizations in themselves.)  Nor, again like Coetzee, does he represent the Wikimedia Foundation. Kaldari states that he explained the free content mandate to Bailey. Bailey had, according to copies of his messages provided by Kaldari, offered content to Wikipedia (naming as an example the photograph of John Opie's 1797 portrait of Mary Wollstonecraft, whose copyright term has since expired) but on condition that it not be free content, but would be subject to restrictions on its distribution that would have made it impossible to use by any of the many organizations that make use of Wikipedia articles and the Commons repository, in the way that their site-wide "usable by anyone" licences ensures.

The proposed restrictions would have also made it impossible to host the images on Wikimedia Commons. The image of the National Portrait Gallery in this article, above, is one such free content image; it was provided and uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation Licence, and is thus able to be used and republished not only on Wikipedia but also on Wikinews, on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, as well as by anyone in the world, subject to the terms of the GFDL, a license that guarantees attribution is provided to the creators of the image.

As Commons has grown, many other organizations have come to different arrangements with volunteers who work at the Wikimedia Commons and at Wikipedia. For example, in February 2009, fifteen international museums including the Brooklyn Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum established a month-long competition where users were invited to visit in small teams and take high quality photographs of their non-copyright paintings and other exhibits, for upload to Wikimedia Commons and similar websites (with restrictions as to equipment, required in order to conserve the exhibits), as part of the "Wikipedia Loves Art" contest.

Approached for comment by Wikinews, Jim Killock, the executive director of the Open Rights Group, said "It's pretty clear that these images themselves should be in the public domain. There is a clear public interest in making sure paintings and other works are usable by anyone once their term of copyright expires. This is what US courts have recognised, whatever the situation in UK law."

The Digital Britain report, issued by the U.K.'s Department for Culture, Media, and Sport in June 2009, stated that "Public cultural institutions like Tate, the Royal Opera House, the RSC, the Film Council and many other museums, libraries, archives and galleries around the country now reach a wider public online." Culture minster Ben Bradshaw was also approached by Wikinews for comment on the public policy issues surrounding the on-line availability of works in the public domain held in galleries, re-raised by the NPG's threat of legal action, but had not responded by publication time.

Background material

 * Catherine Colston and Kirsty Middleton (2005). "Copyright Principles, Copyright Works and Related Rights". Modern Intellectual Property Law (2nd ed.). Routledge Cavendish. pp. 273. ISBN 1859418163.

Национальная портретная галерея Великобритании угрожает гражданину США судебным иском за загрузку изображений на сайт Викимедиа Nacionalna galerija portreta iz Londona u sukobu sa Vikipedijom


text:
Mark Webber wins 2009 German Formula One Grand Prix

July 13, 2009

Mark Webber gained his maiden Formula 1 win today at the German Grand Prix, after 130 races. His Red Bull teammate Sebastian Vettel came in second, with Ferrari's Felipe Massa third. Reigning champion Lewis Hamilton came last.

Webber started from pole position, but touched Rubens Barrichello at the beginning after a slow start. He received a drive through penalty for this offence, which he served at the end of his fourteenth lap. This enabled him to join back in to the race in first place.

Jenson Button remains first in the championship with 68 points, with Vettel and Webber overtaking Barrichello, taking second and third respectively.

After the win, Webber said "I lost Rubens off the start, I thought he had gone to the left but he went right and I banged into him. I had a drive-through and my engineer kept me calm. It was a difficult winter, Sebastian showed in winter testing what the car could do, so I kept my motivation high and I was hurting a lot. The team had patience with me, everyone in Australia and a few people who doubted me too so hello to them as well. So thank you to everyone who helped me here."