Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 1

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fuhghettaboutit (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Hello All. I don't have a massive number of contributions here, though I have written two articles (with a long break between the first and the second), but I hope my copyedits speak for themselves. I am an administrator at en.wikipedia with about 32,000 edits, so you can rest fairly assured I'm not going to do anything untoward. Frankly, I'm getting tired of copyediting an article and having to wait for approval from third parties.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Nn123645 (talk) I typically read wikinews without editing and would like the ability to sight revisions. I don't have much of an edit history at wikinews, but I do have one over at en.wikiLink corrected by Anonymous101talk at 21:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC).. --Nn123645 (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I currently Oppose this request as the user has not made any edits in a namespace that uses flagged revisions, and has only made four edits overall. Although I trust the user, I would like to see them edit a bit (in the main namespace in particular) first. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 22:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Oppose Similar to A101, I think this should only be given out to people who have shown that they know their way around the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • OpposeIs a trusted editor but needs some more edits over here. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I guess I'll withdraw and apply again when I have more edits. --Nn123645 (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tempodivalse (talk · contribs)[edit]

  • Definitely support good editor, a few hundred edits, mostly main namespace. Anonymous101talk 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Seems to have picked up the important details --Brian McNeil / talk 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Speedy Recommend speedy upgrade. I am tired of sighting Tempodivalse's always good edits. --SVTCobra 23:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Want to see if I can get into this early. Have contributed two articles so far about the recent Venezuelan polls, but that's about it. Admin and mediator over at enwiki. Or maybe this should be in the reviewer section? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • sort of support - If the use continues making great edits like he is for the next week I will happily support. However, I am not quite ready to support at this point. Anonymous101talk 16:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Support - Positive contributor. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Support - steady worker; good judgment. Durova (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Support Per the above. Cary Bass (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

King of Hearts[edit]


Hi, just requesting Editor status. I'm doing a fair bit of work on US voters go to the polls and being able to have my edits autosighted would make things easier. Thanks!. סּ Talk 12:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, you work seems to be solid. I will give you Editor status on a provisional basis. --SVTCobra 16:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Requesting editor status - doing some reviews. I feel I am qualified after Hawthorn wins 2008 AFL Grand Final made main lead, and on the top two pages of a google search. -- DizzyStar (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]




Requesting editor status. I think that I am qualified after the aHawthorn wins 2008 AFL Grand Final article made main lead, and is in the top two pages of a google search. -- RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I'm not happy to see sport as the main lead and there were a number of points with that article still needed addressed after it got there. This reflects more on the person putting it there and sighting it than you though. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Support -- DizzyStar (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral - could use a bit more finesse and experience with regard to structure/formatting an article, and writing style/copyediting. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


At the suggestion of brianmc I would like to request Flagged revision status, allowing me to auto-sight articles when I add audio transcripts. Kamnet (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Motion to speedy close and grant per no objections. Any objections? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went ahead and granted him it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red Thunder (talk · contribs)[edit]

I've had considerable experience at enwiki, but now look to spend most of my time here. Requesting editor tools to help sighting articles that I have reviewed. R.T. 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support RT has contributed 6 published articles in 2 weeks: they show a good understanding of Wikinews editorial policy. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support-- ♪TempoDiValse♪  16:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no objections either. Red Thunder (talk · contribs) has been granted Editor status. --SVTCobra 01:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Matthiasb (talk · contribs)[edit]

I'm requesting editors status. Though I have a small number of edits in English wikinews I am setting IW-links to the German wikinews, or correcting a typo here and there. I am a contributor to the German WN and WP as well. (See also de:Benutzer:Matthiasb) --Matthiasb (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Daniel (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IDangerMouse (talk · contribs) (removal)[edit]

  • this version of an article covering the proposed introduction of Flagged Revisions on English Wikipedia was approved when, it appears, a competent review has not been carried out. There are serious issues surrounding neutrality, accuracy, and editorialising. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • remove as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • remove (although I will support the reinstatement of rights if user shows good reviewing skills) There does seem to be some issue, and I completely agree that we should remove "editor" status easily. Therefore, I support the removal of rights. However, if the user shows he can be trusted with the tools again, I will happily support the rights being reinstated. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • remove per nom. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • remove - checking that the links work and that it "looks good" is no way to conduct a proper review. This is an egregious mistake, the user needs to earn the community's trust again. --SVTCobra 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment per this comment, I think the status can be withdrawn. It requires a bureaucrat to do it, but as nominator I would prefer someone else decide. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Editor status has been removed and this request should be considered closed (it does not require a bureaucrat). --SVTCobra 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]