User talk:RetiredUser138857941938

You have been promoted to Editor class

I have promoted you to the Wikinews:Editor class, as I feel you can be trusted to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Take a moment to read:

• Wikinews:Flagged revisions
• Wikinews:Reviewing articles
• {{Peer review}}
• {{Review}}
• Reviewed article version
• Flagged Revisions extension information, on MediaWiki

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews! tempodivalse 19:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

English magistrate resigns over Twitter

Please see my comments on the talk page of English magistrate resigns over Twitter. Good article overall. Calebrw (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian archaeologists announce discovery of marble statue and 132 new sites

Found some more citations from more than ANI and the archaeologist Hawass' blog. (Woo hoo!). (Sorry about that BTW - I try to find more but got sidetracked by the NF notation which was printed where the source usually is, but it turns out it was ANI also, so not enough sources, but now I fixed it.) SriMesh | talk 18:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, goodo. Good luck with review. I'd review it but I am pre-occupied with exams for a while. Computerjoe (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Good luck BTW, my kids are there too in their exam week, so I now how it goes.SriMesh | talk 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

British House of Commons' Speaker addresses Parliament ahead of vote of no confidence

Please see Talk:British_House_of_Commons'_Speaker_addresses_Parliament_ahead_of_vote_of_no_confidence#Sources_.2B_misc.. Left a few comments there ahead of a formal PR. It's a good article and just has a few holes and problems, albeit minor ones. Calebrw (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikinewsie account created

I've created the account at Wikinewsie for you, check your email for the password - I've sent it to you. I've granted you the sysop buttons too, enjoy. Cheers. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Accreditation

Hi, Now, I am confused? Only place where you can get accreditation is here (I thought this is a official place for something like that), and, let say, if somebody is going to work on Wikinews on other language than English, can not have it?--Laslovarga (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding that accreditation isn't official but it is rather just the English community stating that they trust that user. It isn't from the Foundation etc. Computerjoe's talk 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Laslovarga (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Condi" effigy burned at Lewes Bonfire night

All fixed. See my user talk page at User_talk:Calebrw#.22Condi.22_effigy_burned_at_Lewes_Bonfire_night for the full scoop. Calebrw (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Norweigian article going to top of dpl's

This is due to how DPL's work. DPL orders things by the date that {{publish}} was added to the article (it ignores the date in {{date}} in all but a few specialized pages. Things like template:Latest news being the exception). The vandal removed the publish template, in essence depublishing it. When i reverted the vandal this re-added {{publish}}. The dpl treats this as me republishing the article, and uses the date that i reverted the vandal as the date the article was published instead of the original publish date. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is sub-optimal. Any way the DPL can look at sighted revisions only? --SVTCobra 23:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Who would deal with this? Computerjoe's talk 17:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews former Republican U.S. Senator Bob Smith on his latest run for office

Why was no peer review done? I have to move this back to review in the mean time. Calebrw (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I got dragged afk. I hoped I'd be able to get back to my computer to add it, but unfortunately it took longer than I thought. Computerjoe's talk 16:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Mike Lebowitz, chairman of the U.S. Modern Whig Party

Thanks for the review. --WNewsReporter (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

{{press release}}

Thanks for identifying that article as a copy. We have a specific template for those, though. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it really mattered in a community of this size as it'd be quickly picked up. Computerjoe's talk 22:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

Hi Joe, Thought I'd mention I'm willing to help organisation of the elections, however I'm going away for a week. I don't know when you're planning to try & hold them, but if next Monday stuff needs to be done-drop me a note on my talk page. Although I voted to close ArbCom, if we're going to keep it going, I'm more than happy to help. Let me know-if poss. before tomorrow morning(GMT). Ta.    Tris   17:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Leaving tomorrow morning early, back to keyboard next Tuesday evening. So, if you could get all nominations etc. by Friday & then people can vote on candidates. Then, I can do counting etc. & do winner when you're away. How does that sound? I'll check here once more before 6am(GMT) tomorrow morning.    Tris   21:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK cool. PS. make sure it's clear that it's you & me doing it so people don't get confused when I join in half way through! Let me know the timings this week & I'll get them the week after. Cheers!    Tris   22:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, looks like you have everything very well under control! Let me know if anything needs doing.    Tris   18:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WN:RFA

Hi, I've nominated you to be an administrator. If you accept the nomination, please say so at WN:RFA. Good luck! Tempodivalse [talk] 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations, your RFA has passed and you are now a sysop. Someone will drop the adminmobile round shortly - i've lost track of who has it. --Skenmy ^talk 20:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Tempodivalse [talk] 21:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: ARBCOM members and Checkuser

Hi! You noted on Tempodivalse's talk (and possible others) that in order for them to have checkuser they need to file a request at Meta. This is wrong. We must first hold a vote here - which must be supported by 25-30 members of the community. --Skenmy ^talk 20:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, we have had local Oversight access denied to us previously at Wikinews. I don't see how having a new ArbCom will alleviate this :) --Skenmy ^talk 20:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought ArbCom members were eligible for CheckUser (possibly not Oversight, then) to facilitate their work? Computerjoe's talk 20:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

IIRC the rules state that if the arbcom was elected/supported by 25 or more users, then they automatically qualify for CU/OS privs, but since that's not the case here, we have to get at least 25 votes with 80% support at WN:RFP. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The rules state that if an arbcom is elected by 25 or more votes then they have the ability to nominate people for checkuser/oversight. They themselves are not automatically elegible. --Skenmy ^talk 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, I did not read the CheckUser policy but was instead reading Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/CheckUsers which states the ArbCom reserved the right to give these permissions I (wrongly) assumed that as such they themselves would be eligible. The 2008 elections too claimed Arbitrators received these permissions. Computerjoe's talk 20:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Three of us were granted CheckUser, but not Oversight. We probably should have a few oversighters - potentially libellous news / personal information could be posted here, especially in high profile cases --Skenmy ^talk 20:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears the rules changed regarding CU access around the same time as the Wikinews ArbCom elections in 2008. OverSight is granted through the same criteria as CU, but it now appears it is written so that it is nearly impossible for this community to grant either power. Computerjoe's talk 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that requirement was why I pulled out of the 2008 election. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) We probably could muster 25 votes for CU/OS requests if we wanted to - it's been done in the past, when our user base was smaller, so we could likely do it again. I think that it would be a good idea to have some oversighters here, so we wouldn't have to pester the stewards on the odd occasions the OS tools are needed. Maybe we should consider nominating someone. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I too share that notion. Shall I nominate the entirety of the ArbCom for these permissions? Computerjoe's talk 21:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We managed the 25 votes for our Checkusers by rallying the existing project Checkusers. We may have to do that again, but I can see it being doable. Without tooting my own horn, perhaps it would be sane to have the three checkusers nominated for oversight? We stand more chance with a smaller number of people who are well known throughout Wikimedia. --Skenmy ^talk 21:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Tempo? Computerjoe's talk 21:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

What I do know is that I have no desire at present to touch these tools. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So two ArbCom members have CU, one doesn't want it and I don't know about the other two. Should we seek OS for the two who have it first, or put all 4 up to the community? Computerjoe's talk 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(Triple edit conflict! Let me say something!) I agree, I think we should nominate the three current CUs for OS. I'd suggest nominating Cirt for both CU and OS as well, as he is identified to the WMF. As for myself, I don't really want the extra bits. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I can't count. I meant 3 arbitrators have CU, should we put those up or the whole committee? I suggest we proceed with getting those 3 OS. Computerjoe's talk 21:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest we nominate Brian (talk · contribs), Brian McNeil (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs), and Cspurrier (talk · contribs) for Oversight status, as they are already identified to the Foundation, and nominate Cirt (talk · contribs) for Checkuser status as he's the only identified Arbcom member who isn't already a CU. As the other two Arbcom members don't want to have the additional privileges, we won't nominate them. Thoughts? Tempodivalse [talk] 21:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• I, at around that time, got both checkuser and oversight. They were withdrawn when the new rule came into effect. This was followed with a process to get some local people checkuser access - the votes were advertised among the existing checkuser community on other wikis as well as locally. Considering that data governed by the privacy policy is shared on the checkuser mailing list, these non-Wikinewsies were trusted to vote in an informed manner. No similar process was suggested for oversight. It was suggested at the time that it was so rarely likely to be required that the stewards could handle it - there's been over 100 oversight actions this year (I asked the Stewards). All of them to hide usernames. Hiding usernames is something that generally has to be done cross-wiki (i.e. by stewards). There are a grand total of 12 entry-deleting oversight actions, all before mid-2008.

I'd say we don't need local oversight, and it may impede stewards if they have to try and get hold of local oversighters before actually taking action themselves. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

My RfA

Just wanted to say thanks for participating in my RfA. I'll be sure to put the tools to good use. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews:Story_preparation/Wikinews_interviews_videoblogger_Amanda_Congdon

Hi Joe,

I was just looking through articles requesting collaboration & was wondering whether anything is happening with this or whether it can be deleted now? Regards.    Tris   17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete it. Computerjoe's talk 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey, poof. (soon-ish!)    Tris   07:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Brittany Murphy

Ah! We appear to have both written exactly the same article at exactly the same time. What do you suggest that we do? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 22:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Another article was made before mine (by a matter of minutes, I was drafting as he was). That article was redirected into mine. I suggest you merge the two together (copy anything I missed out into it) and redirect it to mine. Best to avoid double redirects! Computerjoe's talk 22:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Sunscreen article

Thanks for the quick review! I'm glad that you found no issues.

Best, Ragettho (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

privs

Busy elsewhere? We understand, but this is a notice of privilege expiry!

Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.

Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use. You can view your user rights log here.

Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.

--Pi zero (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?

We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. It would be a really great time for you, as an inactive Wikinews accredited reporter, to renew your credentials by doing some original reporting or conducting interviews. People should be around to interview to prevent a backlog, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)