Areas of interest: Politics, science, education, culture, law.
Reason: I have started down the road of original reporting and contacted some potential interviewees. It might be easier to get press passes and interviews if I'm accredited. If this happens more, I will also consider getting a UK mobile phone number specifically for making and receiving Wikinews-related calls.
You haven't actually had OR published yet, right? My only hesitation (seriously, only hesitation) in supporting this —enthusiastically— is that I'd like an accredited reporter to have been through the whole OR process including being reviewed/published. So I'm going to wait (eagerly) for that before supporting. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Support :-) --Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Support He is a experienced guy. Vibhijain (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Neutral You've done some good stuff....you really have...and that matters...it does. But, there's no reason in the world why a person has to be accredited to engage in OR.....ya' just jump out there and do it, man! There's kind of an unwritten rule here that OR is HIGHLY VALUED, (I mean, heck....it is a news source). Nonetheless, I think you've got a' lot of potential, but I'm just not sure where to stand right now. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. Synthesis work presented by Tom gives me confidence to support accreditation. Takes on serious stories, knows the tools of newscraft to the extent some OR encouragement is merited. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Support — Definitely:). Gopher65talk 16:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Comment It has now been a month and a half. Any chance someone could close this? —Tom Morris (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.