Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 6

Please don't edit the contents of this page, it's intended for historical reference only.

---

Requests

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems like you need to work a bit more yuttleturtle. Don't let this get you down and continue to work as you have done recently for a longer time, and don't worry, the reviewer bit will be yours with a bit of patience. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

yurtletturtle (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I am requesting permissions in recent light of the fact that we seem to be experiencing quite a backlog for articles to be sighted. I wish to assist in reducing review times (for the good of the project). I understand that I have been on the project less than a month (and I am understanding if you think this isn't enough time), but I have extensively studied the style guide and required conventions of Wikinews. I have also created, for the newer members, a guide to synthesis article creation to avoid common mistakes and to assist in educating the conventions of news reporting (It can be found here). Mistakes that I had previously made in former articles are now corrected (and I have learnt from them). Thanks, ~YTT • (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I'm guessing by the lack of responses and the one oppose vote that the consensus is that it is too early for me. It would be much appreciated, though, if anyone could please tell me what is expected to become a reviewer. Thanks in advance, ~YTT • (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Input on these nominations does sometimes take a few days. I sure hope others chime in on this, 'cause this sort of advice isn't something I'm practiced at.

You need more writing experience. Keep writing articles. Show that you understand the policies and guidelines, and are good at following them — because if you peer-review we'll be relying on you to catch all significant problems with someone else's article. Oh, and don't rush it; if it feels like you're in a hurry to get the bit, folks will get nervous, since we can't afford reviewers who will rubber-stamp articles. We're looking for some weight of evidence that you'll wield the bit well. --Pi zero (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose You're not nearly ready yet. Note that the reason for the long review delays also has to do with the fact that proper review is a huge job, on the uniformly high competence of which the survival and success of the project is crucially dependent. --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, I just don't fell you're quite ready. Please just continue to write for now. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:11, 18 December 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Done --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 15:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

gryllida (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Diego Grez invited me to become a reviewer. I'm familiar with the key policies, and am willing to help with article reviews. Gryllida 23:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Question There seem to have been some concerns with your article NuCaptcha introduces a video captcha service, ads included, both before and after publication. Thinking now as a peer-reviewer would, what do you think of that article, and the concerns that were raised about it? --Pi zero (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not enough focus on the news event (and I realised that when writing the article), because there was not an opening ceremony or anything since this is a product release. I can't agree on the second comment about that the article is promoting the service, because there are no arguments against it which the sources would cite - and the article was attempted to be written neutrally, subjective notes are attributed to the sources they come from (though it took some editing to achieve a full effect on this point). In general what is described is newsworthy and represenents a novel trend in the web market. Gryllida 22:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Of course. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Good answer. That, for me, addresses any remaining concern you were ready for the easy come entry to reviewer. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Pi zero (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Gopher65_talk 03:34, 20 November 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Successful

Bobby122 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Good evening everyone, I am reapplying for reviewer rights, which I last requested a month ago. I have tried my best to take the previous suggestions to heart and have been trying to tighten up on the use of unnecessary words in my articles. I have also written more content and as it currently stands I have 34 articles. However, I understand that volume of articles produced isn't the only thing taken into consideration. I have been hanging around in IRC and doing my best to follow Wikinews policies and guidelines, particularly the style guide. I have also read Wikinews:Reviewing articles and Wikinews:Flagged revisions so I know what is expected of a reviewer. Thank you. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 04:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Question I started the "plagiarism" water cooler thread after the incident with one of your articles, and the discussion has since moved here. What are your thoughts on this issue? --Pi zero (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what is said there. Either a permanent link to the signpost plagiarism essay should be added somewhere noticeable or Wikinews:Plagiarism should be amended to include information about what constitutes plagiarism, how to avoid it while still conveying factual information and should include some of the information from the signpost article which I think is very informative. How to avoid plagiarism might seem obvious to some, the information should still be included for those unfamiliar with the concept. As for my article, at the time I wasn't aware that I had paraphrased the first two paragraphs until you had pointed them out. After this I was informed how to avoid this happening by using a completely different format than the source and also to write what you understand to have happened in your own words. I believe this information should be included in the plagiarism article also as it will help other avoid the same mistake. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 13:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Questions. I haven't seen much of your work around here, so I just want to ask a couple of questions to see how familiar you are with the publishing policies: 1. What do you consider to be your three best published articles? 2. What are the consequences of publishing an article before it's ready? Matthewedwards (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

1. That's a tough decision, but I would say my three best are Typhoon Megi kills seven in Taiwan, heads towards southern China, Two Santa Clara, Utah teens in critical condition after lightning strike and 'Explosive' Haitian cholera outbreak kills 292, neighboring countries prepare. As for #2, the consequences of publishing an article that is not ready is that the unfinished article, the article containing libel, a copyvio article or an article with incorrect information is sent to the Google news and twitter feed for all to see. Once it goes there it is very difficult to remove it and the person who the libel was written about, or the news service that was copyrighted can sue you for many million dollars. They do not go after the Wikimedia Foundation, but after you as an individual, so a reviewer must be very careful as to what you publish.

Votes

• Just give it to him quickly. Easy comes, easy goes. I am sure you won't fuck it up. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Pi zero (talk) 14:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Bobby's learnt quickly. I'm happy enough to support. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:49, 18 November 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as unsuccessful —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mjbmr (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I need flag to mark my edits as sighted, Thank you Mjbmr ^Talk 11:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you Tyrol5, I said i just need flag to mark my edits as sighted, I got good work in other wikis, if there is problem you can say it to me then i will solve it, not get me an oppose vote, You have humiliated me with this work Mjbmr ^Talk 15:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• That is a concerningly obtuse response to a good-faith oppose vote. If you understood the key reasoning behind Flagged Revisions being in-place on this wiki, you'd probably have put together a better-formulated request. Personally, there's absolutely no way on earth I'd support you having sighting rights on the main namespace due to grammar; but, for non-mainspace interwiki, it might be perfectly reasonable. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  While I'm not certain (and I have not been following any additional en.WN drama), it's my impression this user is an active contributor and marketer for fa.WN. Xyr primary activity on en.WN is interwiki linking as fa.WN develops portals and similar stable pages. I don't believe anyone has taken the time to explain to xyr how the Reviewer privilege is really not required, and even should not be used, for the purpose of approving interwiki edits (as it is prone to also approve without review any edits since the last sighting.) Instead, xe should just edit and let others more active in this language do the revision review to make sure nothing unreviewed is sighted. - Amgine | ^t 22:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose It's just to early. Getting reviewer not only gives you the right to sight edits, but the right to publish articles. This isn't to be taken lightly and it is my recommendation that you should accumulate more experience on Wikinews before requesting this permission. Tyrol5 (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose You haven't written any articles and made only 48 edits on the English Wikinews. Just because you've contributed productively on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, doesn't mean you automatically get rights here. Secondly, your response to Tyrol5's oppose vote was quite rude—if you have reviewer status you have quite a bit of power. You can publish articles that may be copyright violations and they will instantly appear on Google News—for such an occurence it is not accpetable to be told you have made a mistake and you must do better next time. Please make at least 150 edits on this wiki and write a few articles before you apply for reviewer again. If you need any help, I'm always willing to help you out. Wackywace^dictaphone 17:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• I Support this request if the user in question is just gonna use the tool only for sighting his own interwiki edits, nothing else. If not, I strongly Oppose, per above. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:36, 22 October 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as not successful. Bobby, your work is much appreciated. Keep it up for two more weeks or so and reapply again. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 15:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Bobby122 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Hello everyone, I have only been here for about a week or so, but have created 10 articles. My experience here has taught me the basic style rules that a news writer has to abide by. I have also realized what an important role reviewers play as if they publish things such as copyright violations or libel they can get into serious trouble. I would love this permission because I have noticed that there is sometimes a backlog of articles which need to be reviewed and it would help to have minor edits sighted, so that important changes can quickly be made. Thank you, Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 05:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I'm likely to keep out this vote, but will remark that - based on the lightning struck teens - you show good potential. Key to improvement is Pleonasm: 'omit needless words'. Go read Orwell's Horizon essay linked to from the Style Guide, reflect on applying that to your articles, and you'll be well-sorted. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I have seen this editor doing good work, but I'm not sure if to support or not. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Could an admin close this? (Barkingfish barked at me for performing non-admin closures at Accreditation requests!). Tyrol5 (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I'm disinclined to close right now; there's only been one vote. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose One week is really not enough time, 10 articles or not. —fetch·comms 02:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Learning and trust-building take time; volume alone won't answer. --Pi zero (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tyrol5 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Solid article writer, has learnt well from experiences. Do you accept, Tyrol? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, BRS, and all of the editors who have displayed their opinions thus far. I accept the nomination and look forward to contributing more in the future. Tyrol5 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Support Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support from spaaace!. I assume xyr tweak of this page implies nom acceptance. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Well that was to close the nom below (promoted by BRS) about ten min. before this nom was added, and I was not around when BRS kindly nominated me. Anyways, just thought I should clarify that. _{Also, I am a male. Just letting everyone know so they don't have to type xe.} Tyrol5 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Fantastic article writer...will be a good reviewer as well. red-thunder. 15:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support great user. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 16:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 16:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Its insane that you're not a reviewer yet. super support. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:58, 26 September 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Done by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs).

Bencherlite (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Request to have my reviewer rights reinstated after I asked for their removal in July. I'm not going to pretend that I'm going to spend lots of time reviewing articles, but every little helps. More importantly, though, I don't see why someone else should need to sight simple corrections like these ones. Bencherlite (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Done Since you didn't resign under a cloud, I've simply reinstated the rights. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:09, 23 September 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed as successful. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wackywace (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

User's creating good articles, updating leads, and all that good stuff, no reason why he shouldn't have reviewer. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment No discussion in three days, someone should close this. Tyrol5 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as nom. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support Great user. Tyrol5 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't want to be a partypooper, but I'm not sure if to give Wacky the reviewer bit. He's written good articles, though. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support per bawolff. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm a touch conerned by the tendency to use long quotes from source articles, but reviewer is an easy come, easy go tool and this is a stellar user. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as not yet ready. The first half or so of this, at least as originally submitted for review, seems to have been a copyvio of the AP source. (I'm still uncomfortable with how close they are.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive request, as noted by Sonia. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Fridae'sDoom (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I've been an active member of the enwiki community, I'd like to participate on cross-wiki activities. Fridae'sDoom (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• This user has a pattern of asking for rights with little reason to do so. For example, he has three edits at simplewiki, two of which are requesting rollback- without heeding his first decline. He has also asked for rights here, here (without clarifying why crat is even in the picture), here, here, here, and these are only the on-wiki ones that have been brought to my attention- I'm sure there's more. He's an industrious contributor, but needless to say this worries me. sonia 09:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Oppose First edit on Wikinews was to post this. It doesn't matter if you're an active member of the enwiki[pedia] community here. This is Wikinews, a separate project, and we give out reviewer flags to people who write news, not the people that post a request for reviewer permission after doing nothing. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, whilst your contributions on en-WP are commendable, you need to demonstrate your ability to write articles on Wikinews before I can in all good conscience support a request for the reviewer permission. You don't need the reviewer permission to write, copyedit, or categorise articles; once you have between five and ten good articles under your belt I'm sure I will have no problems supporting you. Happy editing. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC) When I say "good articles" I mean articles that are good, not the equivalent of en-WP GAs or our very own FAs --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request failed. red-thunder. 15:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Shankarnikhil88 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Hello! I'm applying to become a reviewer again. I think I've fixed a lot of what everyone pointed out before, and I've also seen some vandalism too. Thanks, --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment Can you show some examples of what you have changed since your last request, only two weeks ago? Why do you deserve the reviewer tools now more than you did two weeks ago? red-thunder. 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I've beefed up my knowledge of the Style Guide (like using USD or US$ instead of $), made more articles and also fixed the problems that other people pointed out the last time I requested, like the white space, style guide knowledge and polishing and editing articles more before they get published (like Lou Piniella retires after fifty years of baseball and Wikinews Shorts: August 18, 2010). --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think perhaps that it's time for an admin to close this. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Neutral leaning towards oppose This user has displayed a deep interest in the project and is indeed working hard to improve it; however, I would like to see a bit more experience (previous request was two weeks ago, another not long before that). Tyrol5 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• What, again? No. The community has shown you that you're not ready for reviewer flag several times. This I'm-running-for-reviewer-the-next-week is getting annoying. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  Appending: Never, per his refusal to respond anything for 2 days to my suggestions on his talk page. That's exactly what I don't hope from a reviewer. Discussions are vital on wikis. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral I'd like two more weeks of your great work for Wikinews and I'll give you my support vote. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Also, please do take a look at Strunk's Elements of Style to improve your writing. Good writing is concise as Strunk shows in Rule 13. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, Shankarnikhil88 is a great asset to the site, and has produced some good articles, but Talk:Airliner crashes in China, 42 killed suggests that they don't yet really know how to check presentation and facts before they put an article up for review. While some writers come here fully formed, Shankarnikhil88's experience shows that it takes some time to develop news writing skills to the standards that Wikinews sets for itself. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose нет (Nyet, No, Uh-uh...) - I have no doubt you will be an asset, someday, but jumping in and finishing other people's work with not all the information included is not gonna help you. If you jump on reviews like that, it's only gonna be a matter of time before you make a fatal mistake, publish the wrong thing (libel, etc) and get sued. BarkingFish (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request failed.

Srinivas (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Hi guys! Many of you should be remembering me and some shouldn't be. Anyhow, my name is Srinivas and I have been on a long break of an year on Wikinews. Before taking the break, I had requested for editor (see this) and it failed disastrously. Now that I have come back, I would like to request again. I don't mind if this fails, I only want to see what progress I have made!

After the failure of my previous request, I decided that I would never request again but now I have done so because I want to help in the process of reviewing. I have observed that wikinews has become slow. The articles created get published after a day except for the breaking news ones which also take half a day. I want to lend a helping hand to the reviewers and make wikinews a bit more faster. That's all. --Srinivas 10:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment. You not only, as BloodRedSandman points out below, face being sued for libel an/or defamation should you publish vicious diatribe; you face charges of copyright violation if you reproduce the words of others, even with an adjective or two switched. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 23:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Weak support, leaning neutral Okay articles, but work on some spelling and grammar errors please. --Shankarnikhil88) (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC))

• Weak oppose Oppose per Alexandr Dmitri. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Contrib history looks good, but I would like to see some work with grammar errors, as mentioned above. Tyrol5 (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tyrol. I'm not sure if you should be granted this tool, reviewing is completely different to write articles. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Regretful oppose I think you have a lot to give to Wikinews, and I appreciate your work here an awful lot; I truly hope that you will continue to contribute if this request fails. However, I am not comfortable with the number of gramatical errors you make for you to be reviewing other people's articles. One of the roles of a reviewer is to pick up on errors and correct them, and I'm afraid that I don't have sufficient confidence in your ability to do so. Most regretfully --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I'm sorry, but I must agree with Alexandr. I'm mostly concerned about you leaving close wording to the source articles in the article you write. I found two close wordings in this article. —Mikemoral♪♫ 17:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Furthermore, this raises more concerns. I suggest Strunk's Elements of Style and (re-)reading WN:SG. And again, more close wordings, enough to be a copvio. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Both AD and Mike raise valid points. Try not to be put off, but reviewing is tough. If you fuck up a review and mistakenly publish libel, you can be sued. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:51, 15 August 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request failed.

Shankarnikhil88 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Yes, it's been a fairly short time since the last time I've requested the permission to obtain reviewer permission. However, I've done a lot recently, and if you haven't noticed, I've cleaned up my user-page to distinguish articles I edited a lot to ones I didn't really touch. I've been creating new Wikinews Shorts- two new ones have been published. I've been following the style guide (of course- If I wasn't, would I be applying here?). On one day, I wrote up 3/4 of the articles published. Anyway, I base my request on the fact that I've created 29 articles (over 1,180 edits) in little over two months and also that I genuinely think that I will make a good reviewer and I'd be a positive addition to the Wikinews community.

Comments

Yes the bit is "easy come-easy go", and it's also "easy" to publish an article, but as I understand it, because we send published articles to Google News it's not easy to unpublish one that has been published with issues. Shank, when you add {{review}} to an article you've written, you're basically saying that "This is ready to be published, no more work can go into improving it. It's verified, it meets the SG, it's factually correct, it's NPOV, etc, so let's get it out there at the top of Google News for the world to see." That basically, if you were a reviewer and the article was written by someone else, you would be happy to publish it as-is. But your most recent article failed its review twice, another article required 20 edits between you asking for review and it being published, this one also failed a review twice, and required a large amount of editing before it did get passed. As such, I don't think you're ready just yet. That isn't to say you won't be, because there are articles like this and this that show that the potential is there, just that there are fewer of these examples than examples of the "not ready" variety. Also just wanted to note that looking through your last 500 edits, your copyediting and work on other peoples' articles, the work you did on the two Shorts for Aug 8 (even though they ultimately didn't get published), are definitely a positive and work in your favor for next time you request the bit. Finally, while it has no bearing on your request for the bit, your willingness to work on the Quiz and cat creating is also something to be acknowledged for your willingness to improve the site. You're already a positive addition to the Wikinews community, and I also agree that you will make a good reviewer, just give it a little bit more time. :) Matthewedwards (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone close this? Let's not make this a pile on. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• No What is the urge to have reviewer. What does it do? Publish articles. Nothing special, and not much time has passed since your last request. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 00:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  The point is that I'd like to publish articles, and I think I'm capable of doing so. Just because not much time has passed doesn't mean that you have to count that as a point against me. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  Support Per the concept of "easy come-easy go". If you need assistance on what to do, and the style guide please don't hesitate to poke me on my talk page. (images don't need to be 300px-250px, thumb is enough, please) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  Oppose per Matthew Edwards. If you want I can teach you how is the review process, just leave me a note at my talk if you want :-) Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support provided you brush up on WN:SG and WN:REV; it's easy come, easy go, after all. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Matthew. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose thou protests too much, and still seem too weak on policy and style points. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 05:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I would like to see better understanding of the style guide before you become a reviewer. Tyrol5 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I would have supported in another week or two, but I don't feel confident that you know your way around the style guide in a few days since the last request (see your talk page). Also, please remove that dreadful whitespace between bullet points in listing sources. No need for a line break after each one.) Sorry, whitespace is my pet peeve. —fetch·comms 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- see my comments above. Best, Matthewedwards (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose since you still need to work on you style guide knowledge etc. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:46, 11 August 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unanimous support (ten support vote). Closed a few hours early. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

I'm slightly humbled that this user even stuck around, but it's clear to me he knows his way around this project now. Do you accept, Matthew? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Thank you, BRS I'd actually been considering whether to do this all this week, what with us losing a lot of users and it causing a large backlog of unreviewed articles. However, I had decided to put it off for a while as I didn't want any request to result in getting a number of, let's say, guilt-supports over what happened when I first came here, especially when I'm still seeing my name mentioned in certain discussions. Or as a reward for sticking around. Why am I still here? Because I like to write, I support Wikimedia's projects, and pretty much everyone was sincere and honest when everything became clear. And also in large part to the emails that Brian has sent me. So yes, I will accept the nomination for Reviewer. :)
• For anyone who hasn't kept up, I've written about 8 articles so far. Some might consider to be not enough but I haven't had any kicked back at the revewing stage yet and although I did have a couple of slip ups at the beginning (like [1]), I've learned from that, studied the SG, and so I do think I'm probably ready to review. Thanks again, Matthewedwards (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Support, obviously, as nom. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Bawolff ☺☻ 19:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support You've created good articles, and you have showed to be a great editor. Yes! --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support --Pi zero (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Tyrol5 (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Reviewer is meant to be given out with alacrity to any who demonstrate a basic understanding of the styleguide and peer review process. I think this user has demonstrated basic competence, with a willingness to continue learning. Gopher65_talk 02:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support For persistence and cluefulness --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• very strong support. Matthew has, despite our earlier dreadful treatment, become a productive community member, learned the key policies, &c. Very much trust with this responsibility. (Now back to, repeatedly, breaking my PC as I learn to build custom bootable ISOs.) -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Shows a good understanding of the SG. --Cspurrier (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (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.

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nominator withdrew. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Shankarnikhil88 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Hi, I'm applying for reviewer status again. I've written over 15 articles and three World News Quiz, and I know the Style Guide really well. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Support Benny the mascot (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Nay I don't trust this user with reviewer flag, specially when he claims to "have significantly edited" several articles, when he just corrected some wordings. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment On my user page it says "for the articles I've edited, some of the edits are significant, others not as much." I have not specifically claimed to "significantly edit" any one article. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Diego's comment; mischaracterises the nature of xyr contributions. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /^{alt-talk • main talk} 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Look now- I've sorted them out. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral I've seen a need to copyedit your articles quite a bit (you could also add interwiki links to more of them), and I'm not sure what happened with Obama approval ratings hit new lows. Also, I'm not sure why you use HotCat to add lots of categories one at a time, rather than just typing them out all at once. These are minor-ish issues, so it's a neutral for me. —fetch·comms 22:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm not going in either direction for letting you have the review right. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• No Shankarnikhil88 is very productive and helpful, but I don't think xe understands policy as fully as a new reviewer should. Xe put a lot of work into Truck drivers strike in Greece earlier this week, and put it up for review, while perhaps unaware that (a) the strike was over (b) the sources were not independent of each other. That is the kind of knowledge that can only be gained with more experience on the other side of the fence. --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that my application is getting nowhere. I would like to close my request (as before) and apply later when I understand policy better. If it seems that I don't understand a policy, can someone who knows it point it out for me please in the future? Plus, according to many people's comments, reviewer is supposed to be easy-come easy-go, and I don't understand why people who have written five articles can get reviewer status when I've written close to 20 and I can't get that privilege. Thanks, --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Prolly because they understood quickly that we don't publish old stories (such as the strike in Greece), and most importantly the style guide. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:27, 5 August 2010 (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.

Removal

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User has retired from the project, see the Departure lounge. BarkingFish (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

Per a comment made by Brian McNeil, I would like to know if I'm still trusted by the community to hold reviewer rights and there doesn't seem to be a reviewer reconfirmation. If there is no consensus that I should keep the rights, the closer should remove them from me. I will note that I am largely inactive at the minute, partly because I've become somewhat disillusioned and partly because of commitments on Wikipedia and in real life. Thank you for your consideration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Question HJ Mitchell, I really want to understand, before voting on this, what went on behind the scenes of your publication of Venezuelan army on high alert after Chávez cuts diplomatic ties with Colombia. Were you aware, when you published it, of our site policies on section names and on single-source articles? If you were aware, did you remember to check these; and, in particular, if you did check the single-source issue, what did you conclude about it and why? --Pi zero (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your consideration. When I published it, I wasn't actually aware of the single-source policy (though I very much am now!) but I was well aware of the importance of verifiability, which I thought was satisfactory in that article between the AFP source and the Spanish Wikinews article from which the English article had been partially translated. I am fairly familiar with the Style Guide, but not intimately familiar with all aspects of it. Specifically to the "see also" point, I suppose that's just what 25,000 edits on Wikipedia will do to you. It barely registered that the section was there, let alone that it was improperly titled. I can't promise I'll always catch that kind of thing before I publish otherwise fine articles, but I will do my best. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am somewhat concerned with the publication of Australian Prime Minister accused of poor leadership on climate change. The title is weasel words - no one is identified as accusing the Prime Minister. There are extensive flaws in the article, from the misleading lede paragraph - stating a "bipartisan" opposition when there are three parties opposed and two plus governing party in favour is at best disingenuous - to its mention of Mathew Tukaki, formerly of Drake Australia but currently CEO of SansGov. How many of the sources were examined to find the quotes, which are occasionally taken out of context? (a traditional symptom of context-twisting is very brief one or two word quotes, and a good tool for identifying when an article should undergo a more-thorough assessment imo.) Publishing such an article does not give me good faith in the reviewer's dedication to NPOV, or verification. - Amgine | ^t 05:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Will you improve? Australian Prime Minister accused of poor leadership on climate change relies so heavily on one source that, as far as I can see, it is copyright infringement, (and I have proposed it for deletion.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I did read the source in order to fact-check the article. It was my opinion at the time that the paraphrasing wasn't close enough to be of major concern, however, I don't disagree with your actions– it's definitely better to be safe than sorry and perhaps I should have insisted on looser paraphrasing an better sourcing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment — I'd like to once again note that Reviewer rights are easy-come easy-go. Even if HJ's rights are revoked, there is nothing from stopping him from reapplying (successfully I mean) in a couple months if he feels that he's up for it. Rockerballer has gone through this process several times already. So HJ: don't take it as anything more than a slap on the wrist if Reviewer rights are removed from you. And everyone else: don't be afraid to vote your real thoughts on this in either direction. If he keeps his flag, great. If he loses it, it's not a that big a deal. Easy-go, easy-come. Gopher65_talk 01:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

• Retain rights I don't see anything wrong with your reviews. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep rights. A lot of controversy seems to surround your publishing this article, which, although ideally should have linked to the sources more clearly, nonetheless meets our standards from what I can tell. I'd like to suggest, thought, that you cool off a bit, in regards to your recent comments; we're having enough trouble with an angry, unwelcoming atmosphere as it is and this doesn't really help, although I can understand your frustration. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep You haven't done anything wrong here, keep them. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Overreaction (again) from Brian. C628 (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Don't get me wrong, some of those reviews should have been done differently. However no one is perfect, live and learn. Its a wiki after all. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Since voting I became aware of the controversy surrounding Australian_Prime_Minister accused_of_poor_leadership_on_climate_change. Which I consider more serious. Well I still am not voting remove, I'm moving my vote to a Neutral. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Remove I believe the contributor is unaware of, or does not care for the effort involved in, Wikinews:Reviewing articles. This vote is also influenced by the user's choice of dispute resolution tactics, which suggest a lack of support for either the community or its goals. - Amgine | ^t
• Remove for publishing this as well as a copyright violation which risk GNews delisting us. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Remove Reluctantly. Despite willingness to learn and a laudable work ethic, the contributor has since passed reviews on a couple of inappropriately short articles, one of which had two spelling mistakes, despite being just four sentences. Whether this RFP passes or not, I recommend that they spend a bit more time copy-editing or writing here before picking up the review tools again. Review is not a tool for a person in semi-retirement. --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I did fix several spelling/style errors in that article before I published it, but I missed those. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral A few bad calls but I think this is due primarily to the recentish high stress levels project-wide and his lower level of activity here. I expect near-perfection if the rights are retained and more writing if removed. —fetch·comms 18:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Regretful remove. Australian Prime Minister accused of poor leadership on climate change was unfortunate, but paraphrasing like that is indeed difficult to judge, so on its own could be considered a forgiveable lapse. I am more concerned at this, which despite being so short managed to contain an incorrect statement (the Galaxy S was released in the UK several weeks ago, it was only a new marketing campaign that began last week), and numerous clear grammatical errors, including the title. Reviewer status is supposed to be "easy come, easy go", and I think that HJ Mitchell would benefit from some time off to spend copy-editing and writing. I have every confidence that I will be able to support him regaining reviewer status soon. the wub "?!" 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
• Retain rights Per Bawolff, you live and learn. If we were all perfect and knew everything, there'd be no need for Wikipedia :) I say we give him a chance to show us he can follow rules, and not simply strip him of rights because he did a few things wrong. Big whoop. Show him his mistakes, show him the right way of doing stuff, and get on with it :D BarkingFish (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Regretful remove. Unfortunately, HJ Mitchell is not starting from a position of substantially understanding Wikinews; they have not yet truly assimilated basic principles, and the learning curve for those should be completed before making publication decisions. Despite, as InfantGorilla well puts it, willingness to learn and a laudable work ethic. --Pi zero (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep — I think he'll be fine. He's learning. It takes a while to adjust here sometimes if you come from Wikipedia. In the future though, we should be careful to make sure Wikipedians are fully aware of the differences in policy between Wikinews and Wikipedia (and the reasons for those differences). Gopher65_talk 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that's a fair assessment. "Surprisingly" enough, I didn't go through the process and had my rights granted without request. I wouldn't object to their removal on the grounds that they were given outside of process but even I was a new editor then (I didn't have sysop rights at the English Wikipedia either). If you look at the articles that I've written and the reviews that I've completed thus far, I think you would agree that after some adjustment or collaboration with the author that the articles met our guidelines for publication. I am sorry, but until HJ becomes more diligent in reviewing articles and informs himself of local policy (i.e., gains more experience), I cannot support keeping the right. Blurpeace 08:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Remove, with the recent publication of Loneliness unhealthy as smoking and alcoholism, new study says. I'm sorry, but I've never seen such a low quality article (it's missing punctuation and good flow) be our current main lead. A few mistakes here and there are fine but consistently problematic reviews are more concerning. As Gopher65 succinctly said above, "easy-come easy-go." FWIW, I'd rather see HJ resign the right himself in the face of highly reasoned objection. Blurpeace 08:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The stated intent of this self-nomination is that it be a reconfirmation rather than a removal: HJ Mitchell requested that whoever closes this should remove their reviewer bit unless there is an actual consensus for them to retain it (rather than requiring consensus to remove, as is the case with Brian McNeil's de-sysop). --Pi zero (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, right. That is much more commendable on the part of HJ than I was first led to believe. Thanks, Blurpeace 15:39, 30 July 2010 (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.