Jump to content

Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 7

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Sep 2008 - May 2009
May 2009 - Sep 2009
Sep 2009 - Jan 2010
Jan 2010 - Apr 2010
Apr 2010 - Jul 2010
Aug 2010 - Dec 2010
Jan 2011 - Apr 2011
Apr 2011 - Aug 2015
Aug 2015 - present
This is an archive of past flagged revisions requests for permissions.

Do not edit the contents of this page.

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the main page.

Requests

[edit]


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 a successful. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kayau (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

See User_talk:Kayau#Admin. Note that I'll try to avoid reviewing articles until I think I've got enough experience, though I'll probably accept edits like tyop fixes. Kayau (talk · contribs) 10:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
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.



The request has been open for two days and has received sufficient input, so I am closing it as successful. Out of thirteen !votes, 11 are in support of granting BG reviewer. While valid concerns have been raised, I see consensus to grant BG the reviewer status. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

What the hell. People have already told me that going this early will probably fail for some obscure reason or another, but here I am, requesting the reviewer flag. I've been lurking around Wikinews for a month or so now, but have only been actively contributing for the past week or so. I've had three articles approved (All with barely any changes made to them at the review stage, save for a few minor copy-editing bits) in that time and as I write this have a fourth awaiting review, including my first stab at some OR. Reviewing is something that appeals to me and, particularly considering there's generally a backlog, should be something of assistance to the community. I've been "going through the motions" on various articles for a few days and am clued up on what's what. Finally, for context, I'm also an active user at simple.wikipedia and have been active in the past at en.wikipedia (*gasp*!). I've a good knowledge of both sides of the MediaWiki software and Flagged Revisions in particular, so know what I am doing. Whilst my Wikinews experience is probably below the threshold for many, I also run a free online e-magazine (In my specialist subject field, of course!) which is where my "news"/journalism experience lies. Hope that all makes sense. Comments welcome... I realise it's set up in a certain way but please don't vote? Comments are soooooo much more useful! :) Thanks! Goblin 02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
We've been discerning lately; I don't think that's insane. It's possible for someone to demonstrate in three or four articles that xyr ready. It's also possible to have written far more than that but not have demonstrated readiness (and, in fact, not be ready yet). Keep in mind that slip-ups don't only damage individual articles and the reputation of the project: they also create tensions on-project, an explosive atmosphere just waiting for a spark to set it off. --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tempo, please take this as constructive criticism. A Wikinewsie should be aware of xyr own biases. You've been sniping at the project every since your return here; it's clear you badly want to believe the worst about the way things are done, and lately you've demonstrated a propensity to overlook, or (failing that) go to lengths to dismiss, any evidence that might cast doubt on your preferred interpretation. --Pi zero (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the part about Nupedia, admittedly that was melodramatic. Sniping at the project, somewhat? Yes, but I feel attention should be drawn to the reviewing issue, and I'm frustrated at how slowly things are being changed. If I come off as bitter, please remember I'm not criticising to be disruptive; I honestly care about the project. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I do believe you honestly care (an assessment on my part :-). Here's a thought regarding bitterness/sniping, not-criticizing-to-be-disruptive, and the like. Some years ago, I attended a large local event, two years running. Buses moved people to and from the site. The first year they didn't have enough buses, and there was a very long wait to leave after the event. The second year, while we were waiting to leave, I (incredibly naively) made remarks to people around me about how slow things had been the previous year. In the space of a half hour or so, that group of people was on the verge of turning into a mob (the real thing, not the virtual-reality echo of it we had here a year ago); you could feel a potential riot near the brink. The few police officers around clearly felt it too. People could have been hurt (or killed). And looking back on it afterward, I could see I'd had a meaningful part in making that harrowing situation.
(I could take even more time and space, to remark on my alternative theories regarding the consequences of reviewing standards, and reviewer standards, and the growth dynamics of the project generally — but I've already written so much I hesitate to add even more.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.



User withdrew. Diego Grez return fire 19:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nascar1996 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I 'gave up' the right last night thinking I was leaving, but I made a mistake. Please and thanks. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 18:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw immediately. Since users expect me to completely not take Wikinews serious I shouldn't get this right. I must have wasted hours on this project to help it. Enjoy your project Wikinews. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment I initially supported the immediate de-reviewer, though I quickly asked off-wiki that an on-wiki request to confirm consensus be made. Having slept on it, I'm not convinced that was a good idea, or even a workable one. Also, remember that as soon as a certain user I blocked elsewhere showed up here I promised them a clean slate here and they've become a valuable user. Equally, though, I think we all understand why people are uncomfortable. The key point is, do we still trust this user to review properly. I'm still unsure what to make of that, and will probably abstain, but I wanted to get these thoughts down. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I know who is the user you "blocked elsewhere and came here" :) Nascar hasn't been taking Wikinews seriously, I don't think he should have his rights restored right now. Perhaps, until everyone cools off. Diego Grez return fire 19:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
  • Oppose; you know very well what you did yesterday, I don't think that the community (not all of its members, I know) is just ready to give you the right back just... after 12 or so hours of "giving it up". Wikinews is not a joke, you should not be taking it as such. I suggested you, by emails, that you should try taking a break from editing the wiki, to wait for people to forget this unpleasant situation which you, with your immaturity and agressiveness towards homosexual people provoked yesterday. Don't expect people to forget it so quickly. Come back in a few months, after you have showed us you've changed. This only proves us more that you are being immature. Diego Grez return fire 18:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain for (probably) obvious reasons. — μ 19:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.



Open for 2 days, near-unanimous oppose. — μ 11:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pashute (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Asking to become reviewer so more articles which have been prepared by others - all well sourced and no problem, but just never received the time or focus. Another eye could help with this.

Also, many times the regular news outlets are giving the news with a POV, while the facts are clearly shown in sources, such as the pullout of US aid or failure to detain the radiation in Japan, that could be seen for a day before officially reaching the mainstream news outlets. I believe I can be more impartial and objective on these issues, since I am a private citizen, not working for any government.

I've been here on wikinews for at least 4 years, and on wikpedia (English, Hebrew, Yiddish), wikitext (Hebrew) - status moderator, wiktionary (Hebrew), wikiCommons - contributor of various images and illustrations - mostly in the field of science, and other wiki projects.

I have written about various people and issues, where all the information I had was from web research, then discovered that these people or issues were controversial. Followed up in depth to learn what the claims of both sides are. Then sided with what I believed is the truth. Proved it, and most of the times the claims where accepted, even against fierce opposition.

Please see for example w:Adil Najam which was deleted 3 times before my addition. Especially telling are w:Talk:Adil Najam) and the article's history. In this particular case, I learned that the critics where correct in the details, but incorrect in the whole: He is influential and well known, although he is not the "Nobel prise laureate" as depicted in the earlier articles. In other cases I learned that I was wrong in my suppositions, and clearly appreciated that in writing. By the way, I had stumbled on Adil Najam and his environmental theories, without knowing that there were any politics involved(!)

I thank anyone who responds regardless of the outcome, and hope to serve the wikinews writer and reader community to the best! Pashute (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions...

[edit]

...and votes

[edit]
  • Neutral Thank you for your enthusiasm! It's not often we get editors as enthusiastic as you. However, I'm currently hesitant to support this request. While your work on other projects is appreciated, I note you only have a handful of edits here. Because reviewers have the technical ability to publish articles to Google News and many different feeds, it's important that they demonstrate a good understanding of our various policies. You haven't shown that yet (no articles, only a few moves/edits). However, please don't be discouraged. There is still a lot you can do without the reviewer tool. I'd be happy to support in a week or two after you've written a few good articles and/or done copyedits of other articles, to show that you know the style guide. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Wikinews is not Wikipedia. Reviewers need to understand Wikinews policies and standards, such as our Style guide. You have experience with Wikipedia, which is very different, but looking at your edit history here, you clearly don't have experience with Wikinews, and don't yet understand some very basic things about Wikinews standards. Study, and write articles. There's good material on template {{Howdy}}. --Pi zero (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning towards weak support; per Tempo. Diego Grez return fire 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose leaning towards neutral Your enthusiastic approach to the project is great but I can't really support if you have nothing to show! Please write an article or two (following all of the guidelines) and show us that you understand the policy. If you do that, I am more than happy to support your request! ~YTT T | C 07:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You submitted this revision for review; no categories, no wikilinks, no related news. These are points that should be addressed when reviewing. Thus, whilst a good contribution, I feel you lack the requisite knowledge and experience. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You need more experience with creating articles. You might also choose to copy-edit some as well. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 04:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Very strong oppose - You joined in 2006. You had a 5 year break, come back 9 days ago, and expect to walk into a job which requires a lot of work, understanding of policy and procedure, and something in the background to show us you know how to write decent material, and you barely have any contribs. There can only be one answer to your request. No chance. BarkingFish (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.



yurtletturtle (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

It has been extended for more than two days, and nothing has changed. There's no consensus, and it is pointless to keep the request for more time. Diego Grez return fire 21:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended for a day or so to allow responses to Yurtletturtle's comments. — μ 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! Despite quite a lengthy absence from Wikinews due to educational commitments, I have now found myself with a bit more time and thus feel that I could handle the job of reviewer on Wikinews. I now have six articles and just a tad over 500 edits and have a sound knowledge of the MoS and other publishing guidelines. Seeing recent discussions about reviewing recently, I feel that I should re-apply for the bit. Thanks, ~YTT T | C 10:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions...

[edit]

Question You've only had five mainspace edits since your last edit to your previous FR/RfP. What has changed in those four edits that will make users wish to support you? — μ 10:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • My editing style hasn't varied at all really but more the environment in which we are operating. Articles just aren't getting published and (in many a case) are left to turn stale. I have had one extra article (which may not have been taken into consideration from the last RFP) published and from what I saw in the results of the last vote, people weren't critiquing my style but rather experience (even then, there was no consensus with equal votes for support, neutral and oppose). I feel confident with editing and I think that I am ready for the bit (despite my absence) and hope the community thinks the same as well. ~YTT T | C 10:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question You say below you've written an article that "may not have been considered at [your] last RFP". In another comment below you say it was not considered. Could you provide a link to the article, please? (Claims like that should be accompanied by a link.) --Pi zero (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was Australia announces levy bill to offset cost of Queensland floods. All of the oppose votes came before this article was even created. ~YTT T | C 06:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and votes

[edit]
  • Oppose This is your third request for reviewer. Your first two requests were premature, and nothing has changed since your second. See my comments on your second request, here. For completeness, your first request was here.
My comments last time included a note about patience. I'm now worried about impatience to get the reviewer bit, and this reapplication without attempting to self-improve first. --Pi zero (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have actually written another article (may not have been considered at my last RFP). Your last vote was a neutral. May I ask what has changed it to an oppose? ~YTT T | C 08:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I trusted YTT last time, still trust him now. We do need more reviewers and I see no reason why he'd misuse the bit. Standards for reviewership are becoming very high and it is hurting our ability to publish news in a timely manner. I myself got the tool after a puny three articles and ~50 edits. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, most of those were edits that increased confidence in your command of English; not trivial tems which may be labelled as grammatical corrections and are actually "personal preference" on such. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Though possibly classed as "personal preference", they were legitimate edits which showed no error in my grasp of English. You can not say that they were trivial and did not increase my confidence in my command of English - they were correct changes after all (even if "personal preference" changes. ~YTT T | C
  • Oppose because I see nothing to actually assess from. "Trivial" edits, such as the smattering made since you last begged for this right, do not encourage any confidence that you could judge what copyedits are appropriate in deciding if an article could be raised to a publishable level. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your concern but cannot fully agree with you - many copyedits of mine were legitimate and correct. Also, I have written a further article that was not considered in my last RFP. ~YTT T | C 08:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.



Mono (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

Hi, I'm Mono. I've been working here for a couple months now; so far I've written 10 articles and gotten the hang of the processes here. I'm active in #wikinews and have seen the trouble the project has had getting articles published in a timely fashion, so I am applying for reviewer rights. I've worked with Flagged Revisions before and I have read the documentation (WN:MOS, WN:REVIEW, etc.). I will admit that my edit count is not large, but this is mainly since I have concentrated on writing content. Recently, I've been looking at other articles, offering suggestions, and improving them. Thanks, theMONO 00:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions...

[edit]

...and votes

[edit]
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.



Appears very unlikely to pass due to lack of experience of candidate and oppose !votes, closed quickly basically per this And yes I do know it is not a WN policy... I don't think we should pile on opposes on a newcomer, so this is closed quickly. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 17:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ken1000 (talk · contribs · deleted – Edit rights)

[edit]

I am new to Wiki but I'm a trustworthy person. Thanks. —Ken1000 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions...

[edit]
  • Comment The current wording on the {{review}} template could, unfortunately, be taken by a newcomer as an invitation to feel free to apply for the bit. The template should be phrased more clearly. --Pi zero (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and votes

[edit]
  • Not now Your only created your account hours ago. Please familiarize yourself with policy and write a few articles. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Trust is only one factor here. The other is familiarity with policy and good grasp of news style - and the only way we can be sure of that is if you get stuck in and write a few articles. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 07:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per BRS. You are simply not granted this right until you have demonstrated knowledge of policy, English grammar, and what constitutes news. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No way, José! You don't simply create an account, come here and expect to get granted some fairly heavy duty rights straight off the bat. You don't know about the site or its policies, you've written absolutely no articles, and in short, right now, you don't have a prayer. Cut your teeth on some work, read the rules, familiarize yourself with what we do and how, and come back in 6 months when you've started to figure out how we operate, since you clearly have no clue right now (or you wouldn't have posted this, would you?). BarkingFish (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not now: At the moment, you have not demonstrated enough experience or familiarity with our policies to qualify for the reviewer right. Hang around for a while, and write a few good articles, then try again. I propose an early closure per WP:SNOW and expect to be shouted at for linking to a policy from The Other Place. Δενδοδγε t\c 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Account too young, no content experience. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 per no opposition in 48 hours. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morris (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

I've written on and off for Wikinews since November, and have had seven articles published (listed on my user page). I'd like to think I'm a reasonably trustworthy person (on WP, I've got a clean record and a few thousand edits under my belt, and I've got rollback and reviewer: I know how the tools work) and although my edit count is low, that's mostly because I tend to write articles straight through in one pass rather than stitch them together like a quilt as some editors seem to do. I'd say the article I'm most proud of is UK Parliament to vote on tuition fee rise on Thursday, a lengthy, synoptic article on the politics of the UK university tuition fees debate. I understand the publishing process, have read the policies and the MOS. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions...

[edit]

...and votes

[edit]
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.



No opposes in 48 hours, flag granted. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BarkingFish (talk · contribs – Edit rights) (Re-grant)

[edit]

Some time ago, as you will probably remember, I asked for my rights as a reviewer to be removed unilaterally due to my publication of a serious copyright violation. A fair while has passed since that occurred, and although still a little shaky, I think since you're crying out for reviewers (even ones who've barely been with us for 4 weeks), that I must put my oar back in and ask for a decision from the community on a re-grant of my rights to review. I've had enough of being a spectator. I know what I did wrong, I've learned from it, I won't do it again. Simples :) BarkingFish (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.



Reviewer permission granted per unanimous support at the end of 48 hours. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashershow1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I've been working on Wikinews for about two and a half months now; in that time I've written six articles, recorded three spoken articles for Audio Wikinews and made just over 400 edits. I had originally planned to hold off on a request for reviewership, but in the last couple weeks I've seen one too many good articles go down the drain simply because there was not a reviewer available to review the article in time. Additionally, after seeing the nomination of User:Mattisse, I believe I am qualified to be a reviewer. I've read WN:REVIEW, WN:CONTENT, and large parts of WN:MOS. I've also followed the contributions of User:Pi zero, User:Brian McNeil, and User:Blood Red Sandman to better understand how WN works, since I first came here from WP. Thanks. --Ashershow1talk 02:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]
  • Comment - I have one reservation and being new here, I don't know the best way to approach this issue. The article you wrote Candle knocked over during voodoo sex ritual causes apartment fire was passed and published with major mistakes of fact and the inclusion of editorial judgment. I rewrote the article (see article history) after it was published. You an exceptionally pleasant editor to work with and I have faith that you have the willingness to improve your skills. Everyone makes mistakes. Good luck! Mattisse (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
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 no consensus. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mattisse (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Assuming xe accepts, Mattisse has learned quickly and is producing good-quality articles that I believe show suitability for reviewer status. Mattisse, do you accept? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I accept with the understanding that my basic skills are writing and copy editing. I am not sophisticated regarding the more complicated issues discussed in many of the threads here. I will accept with the understanding that I have a lot to learn about how wikinews works, and I hope you all will teach me. Thank you. Mattisse (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

[edit]
  • Comment In an excess of caution, in case this hasn't been clearly pointed out: A big difference between a Wikinews reviewer and a conventional news editor is that a reviewer cannot "self-publish". With scare quotes because it's more than just not being allowed to publish a story you wrote yourself (a quick route to de-reviewer).
  • If you edit someone else's article too heavily, you cease to be an uninvolved reviewer, so you have to recuse yourself from peer-reviewing it. Sometimes that means after you set out to peer-review someone's article, you end up recusing yourself instead.
  • If an article is already published, and you make a substantive change to it (something that wouldn't be allowed on an archived article), you don't sight your edit, but instead leave it for another reviewer to peer-review.
--Pi zero (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

[edit]
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 No consensus. 2 support; 2 oppose; 2 neutral. Opened for eight days. Diego Grez return fire 21:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yurtletturtle (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

[edit]

It has been just over a month since my last request for reviewer. Over the period of time between, I have: received accreditation, written more articles, studied the style guide and general Wikinews policies to ensure a high standard of writing (and copyediting), become more active by copyediting other articles and I have participated in some informal reviews (following reviewer guidelines). I have also been carrying out general maintenance work on the wiki such as updating leads, placing tags on articles and keeping an eye out for vandalism, spam and copyvios. I usually have a few hours a day spare (so I will be remaining an active contributor). If you need to contact me, drop me a line on my talk page, Wikinewsie email or IRC. Thanks, ~YTT T | C 13:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Votes

[edit]
Oppose Nothing has changed since about a week ago, when you asked me whether I felt you were ready and I explained why I felt you weren't yet. From my answer then:
Honestly, no, I don't think you're ready. You've only had, what, four published articles? The second to most recent I see seems to have been heavily edited for publication. ... A little before that, there was the ultimately deleted "Assange fears assassination if extradited to US", which had extensive problems. You need to improve your skills through more writing experience. --Pi zero (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I meant to emphasize writing experience: tagging other people's articles that have serious problems isn't going to be enough on its own.
Be patient. Patience is definitely a virtue in a reviewer. --Pi zero (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have not! Lol. For a reason I said "essentially per Blood Red Sandman": I'm not comfortable supporting you for reviewer yet. As Pi zero has pointed out, you have only written four published articles, I understand you want to review articles, but I'd like to see some more articles written by you, that's all. Diego Grez return fire 00:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sorry Yurtle, but I'm in general agreement with Pi Zero. Even 5 articles is still a little short on the go, I'd like to see a bit more work out of you before you land this right. It's a big responsibility, as I've found out myself, and not one to be taken lightly. I'd give it a couple more months minimum before you even consider it again. BarkingFish (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support What happened to "easy come, easy go"? It appears reviewer standards have skyrocketed in the past few months - we have administrators who have fewer edits and fewer articles than Yurtletturtle. I myself got the review tool after a paltry three articles and fifty edits. In any case, I fully trust this user to do well as a reviewer - we really need more people going through the review queue. Waiting for several more months seems an almost absurdly lengthy time to wait, IMO. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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

[edit]


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 keep. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs)

[edit]
See also
Wikinews:WC/P#Revocation of reviewer. — μ 22:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has made a grand total of 92 edits on Wikinews, and has edited just two pages since getting his reviewer right in 2008, which he appears to have gained with no prior discussion. I doubt he's aware of current review policy — so him using the tool is counterproductive. He hasn't edited, he hasn't used the tool, could not use the tool properly: there is no reason for him to have the tool. — μ 09:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, he didn't even request it as far as I can make out — it was just given out because he was "founder of Wikimedia". — μ 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the right. Better to clean up one case when noticed than to leave it just because there are others not identified; but a systematic housecleaning is in order. One gathers many users were given the bit uncritically in the early days of flaggedrevs, before our (hah, "our") standards for the bit had solidified. Various users have since been given the bit by one or another admin with no community discussion, and it seems we'd need a comprehensive list of those to know what action is appropriate for such cases. (And then there's the absent-for-a-year conundrum, which has been batted around occasionally.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Since Jimbo may not see his page here very often, I have taken the liberty of notifying him of this discussion on his main talk page at Wikipedia. BarkingFish (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the right - Not knowing the rules is no reason to take out the rights, better that he read them and become proficient in how to use the tool. BarkingFish (talk) 13:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas I'd say not knowing the rules is an overriding reason to take out the rights. To me, the alternative is like giving someone a license to fly jumbo jets and then encouraging them to learn to fly before using the license. --Pi zero (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the information about this section specifies "has abused editor status", unless and until such a claim is made about Jimbo Wales, the request is, on its face, out of normal order. Collect (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense applies; this is obviously the place to put it. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed (with Pi Zero). The spirit of that clause is to stop people from spamming this page with totally unfounded requests. The Spirit is not broken since this request has logical reasoning behind it and is not meant to be disruptive. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's up to you all. What you have to ask yourselves is what kind of project do you want to be? Exclusionary, hostile and petty? Or open, welcoming, and seeking support from people who care a lot about the project and can do a lot for it? It's purely symbolic, so make your choice accordingly. I will do the same.:) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I *have* to completely agree with Jimbo. If he doesn't get to keep his rights then several *very* important people will be come *very* miffed. We might even stomp out together in unison and create much Drahmah. Balls *will* be taken home. Choose accordingly. SpoiledBrat (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC) This is the first and only edit of SpoiledBrat on Wikinews, shortly after the account creation. --Diego Grez return fire 02:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Apparently, it's the first and only edit by SpoiledBrat on any WMF project. I suppose this was someone's acerbic comment on Jimbo's post, alluding to a paradigm of childish behavior — threatening to take xyr ball and go home, i.e., not play and perhaps spoil others' play if not allowed to get xyr way. Of course, Jimbo's second post, below, explains that's not the way he intended his first post.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's unfair, Jimbo, and you know it. It is good security practice to remove those privileges which are not required - not that in your case it would be a risk but it is better to not have exceptions to the general practice. To turn your response around, seeking support from people who care a lot about the project would probably not include seeking support from you, personally, as you have limited time to invest and have invested that time with projects you really care about - not en.Wikinews. I respect that, but don't try to threaten withdrawal of support that hasn't been present for rather a long while.
    (Incidentally for the community, I'm opposed to this RfP remove because it's not based in policy.) - Amgine | t 19:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless you're willing to also dereviewer the other users who did not obtain reviewer rights through RFP. There has been no abuse of rights, so I see no case for removal. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I think that any reviewer that both a) has not published an article with the EzPR gadget (easily quantifiable & a mark of activity), and b) does not have an orange dot next to their name, should no longer have the right. But that's for another page. — μ 23:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we are concerned that a certain class of people may not have the technical skill to use the bit properly, then surely we don't want to encourage those very people to use it. --Pi zero (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fair to call the right symbolic, and to note that Jimbo is trustworthy; which made me not really give a damn either way. I'm weighing up wether the above attempt at moral blackmail changes my stance; it surprises me from someone like him. As far as within policy or not goes, that's a grey area; the policy assumes users have gone through WN:FRRFP (above) but was written after a number of users had the rights. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded, BRS. In my opinion, users who received the right before the application of the policy should not have their rights removed by a policy which didn't exist when they got it. BarkingFish (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC) (Edit made whilst drunk)[reply]
weak keep. Don't overly care. Pretty much agree with BRS. At the time policy was that any admin could give anybody they thought was trustworthy that right, so I don't feel it was illegitimately given (I didn't have a thread here on RfP for that right either). Sighting can be used for non-publishing activities too, like sighting templates and what not (that's an aside in response to people who have never published article should lose right idea proposed above). At the end of the day I trust jimbo, and see no reason to remove the rights. (This includes trusting him to read instructions before using the tools, which I am perfectly confident he is capable of, thus i am not concerned with him not knowing current policy). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - trusted user. No valid reason to remove.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep for goodness' sake. Symbolic. Why engage in pettifoggery over this - is there a problem here that this will solve, or is this just balatronic posturing to make some point. (Full disclosure, I'm not a WikiNews regular, this is probably like my 2nd edit here. But I am a regular on other Wikimedia projects.) Herostratus (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This nomination was not (that I can see) ever personally about Jimbo, but it's flawed because it doesn't make that sufficiently clear. That said,
people coming here from sister projects should understand the following points (cf. here):
  • Wikinews has been grappling head on, for years now, with technical challenges that Wikipedia is only beginning to slightly brush up against. (IMHO, the solutions we are laboring mightily to develop here are things Wikipedia will need increasingly in future years if it is to continue to evolve in a positive direction.)
  • Partly (though only partly) because of that, while we hold our sister projects in great esteem, and welcome input from their members in discussions such as this, their votes are secondary to those of contributors to this project.
  • A user who has the review bit and doesn't fully understand it can do dire damage here accidentally — more dire than (say) Wikipedia is accustomed to, because Wikipedia has room for just about anything to go wrong and be fixed later with no lasting harm. I'm actually surprised Jimbo would want to have the reviewer bit; when I was new to this project I was very glad I didn't have the bit, so I was in no danger of accidentally doing something dire.
Frankly, I think this nomination is being quite counterproductive, despite the very best of intentions; the outstanding substantive policy issue — review bits handed out before standards were normalized — is being obscured behind procedural and "popularity contest" issues (although Wikinewsies, whose votes take precedence here, are generally too objective to let Jimbo's obnoxious behavior above color their positions). --Pi zero (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, what are the technical challenges that Wikinews is in the forefront of confronting? Here you have a forum that is being seen by many non-Wikinews regulars (since it involves Jim Wales), so please expand on this, maybe we can help. If there are technical challenges facing us that are resolvable (at least in part) by removing Jimmy Wales's permissions, that seems simple enough, and other Wikimedia projects can follow suit. Or are we missing something? Herostratus (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No compelling reason to remove them. However, Jimbo's comment, "What you have to ask yourselves is what kind of project do you want to be? Exclusionary, hostile and petty? Or open, welcoming, and seeking support from people who care a lot about the project and can do a lot for it?", comes off as disrespectful to me. So proposing the removal of rights from inactive users is now hostile and petty? A user started a good-faith discussion and this discussion being called hostile and petty is ridiculous. —fetch·comms 16:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no valid reason to remove them; Jimbo is trusted and can be trusted to voluntarily give up his rights if he thinks it is not good that he has them (as he has done in other situations in the past). That being said, I really don't like the tone of his comment above; this is a perfectly fair and valid discussion to have and the outcome has no bearing on how "open, welcoming, and seeking support" this project appears in my opinion. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given Brian McNeil's comment below, I should probably point out that while I do most of my editing on Wikipedia and do not have a high edit count here, I do actually have a well-informed knowledge about the way things work at Wikinews...I spend most of my time on Wikinews watching and studying the way things work here so that I can function well on here should I choose to become a more active contributor. In that event, please do not discount my vote as one of those "unaware Wikipedians", as my vote was one made with the policies and procedures of Wikinews and not those of Wikipedia in mind. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who's vote gets counted depends on if contributions exist before this vote (this is standard policy, not something that was made up just because we felt like it). Well you don't have a large number of edits, I personally think its sufficient for you to have your vote counted. People who are anons, or people who have (roughly) less then 5 edits before this vote will not have their vote counted. Rest assure the relevant activity checks will be done before discounting anyone's vote. Bawolff ☺☻ 07:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, for the most obvious of reasons: this right is not "honourary". Instead, it is trust from the community that specific standards of English will be applied. There is quite nuanced policy around use of the actual privilege, its misuse could badly damage the project's credibility, and Jimbo has admitted he lacks the time to become suitably involved to learn the appropriate ropes. Taking away the right is no insult, nor is an exclusionary or snobbish act on the part of the Wikinews community; it is, in stark contrast, being realistic, ensuring the project's editorial independence cannot be challenged or otherwise questioned, and a sensible security precaution for any computer system operating username/password authentication schemes.
Aside: I'm voting here to have my say. I was most tempted to refrain from doing so to permit me to close the vote, discounting those cast by Wikipedians unaware of the peer review policies on this project. This is not what Wikipedians know as "Pending changes", please disavow yourselves of any such misconceptions. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: I have "admitted" no such thing at all. No one has had the courtesy to even ask me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear: I don't mean any "emotional blackmail" at all. I'm not threatening to do anything, either way. I'm just saying: this is bad policy, and part of why projects like Wikinews have a hard time thriving. Treat known community members with respect - all of them - and look at an unused flag as an opportunity to engage positively with someone, not a problem to be solved. What Wikinews should be doing is going around to active Wikipedians who are trusted and offering them the flag based on having the admin flag at Wikipedia - and asking them to do some reviewing and writing here. Outreach, not hostile rules-lawyering is the path to success.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to disagree that this is a bad policy. All that is asked is that you demonstrate some understanding of our policy and proceedures. This is usually done by writing some articles of decent quality. Outside of that, anyone from anywhere is welcome to apply for this bit. --RockerballAustralia c 23:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not even /tried/ to write an article here. So...??? You want our policy to be different only for you? No. You're just another one from the plebs. You did not even found Wikinews, this ISN'T Wikipedia, where you can rub people's face saying "Oh see! I AM THE FOUNDER! You are all below me, respect, obey." No. We aren't that moronic, I'm sure. Goodbye, Mr. Wales, take your idiotic dictatorship somewhere else. --Diego Grez return fire 23:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diego, that is over the line. Jimbo never suggested we should bend the rules specifically for him, he has never claimed to found us as far as I am aware, and he certainly hasn't claimed to on this page. Jimbo is a user in good standing here (his last edit may be long long ago, but he has never done anything to lose his good standing) and should be treated with respect just like any other user. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He may be an user in good standing here, but if he isn't going to do anything here, what's the point of him having the reviewer flag? --Diego Grez return fire 00:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He is not in bad standing here, having never AFAIK done anything really bad here (though his first post in this thread showed, at the least, truly hideous judgment). And you did get somewhat carried away, Diego. That said, he is in fact suggesting special treatment, quite openly and honestly in his second post — just not only for himself but for all Wikipedia admins. An idea analogous (picking up the theme from one of my earlier comments) to suggesting that anyone licensed to drive big-rig trucks should automatically be allowed to fly jumbo jets. It's not exactly encouraging evidence that he understands the ramifications of the bit. --Pi zero (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I may have shot at things Jimbo's said here, but I don't read his comment like that at all. I think he doesn't get that it's about more than just trust - WP admins are trusted, so following from that viewpoint, it would be reasonable to just hand it out. I've actually thought about direct recruitment of Wikipedians and how we might convince them. Jimbo may be wrong in that it's learn first and then get the flag, but in fairness, established Wikipedians would likely learn quickly and get the flag. No, I don't think that's actually an unreasonable idea. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 01:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make about his second post is that he doesn't get it's about more than just trust (though my analogy failed miserably because it doesn't reflect the trust/skill distinction), and that's what's not encouraging. What you're describing isn't unreasonable (though I do think it will remain premature until we've gotten some other things into better shape first, otherwise it's just a recipe for another meltdown like last year); but it's the "more than just trust" that makes it not unreasonable. --Pi zero (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diego Grez should be kicked off the project for his personal attack above. That is well below the standards that this project professes to uphold. 86.159.91.236 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the analogy is fine to me (it is ludicrously larger-than-life; but then, that makes the flaws clear - which is the whole point). My issue was with "special treatment". If Jimbo's thinking of this as trust-only, then picking people from over there who are obviously trustworthy isn't really special treatment. While it shows lack of understanding, I'm actually glad Jimbo's cleared that up this way - it means I can go back to thinking of Jimbo as a pleasant, kindly Wikimedian. The issue was a communications failure. As for active recruitment; yes, the problem is attracting them to stay. See Amgine's post to the Water Cooler... Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should login so we know who you are. --Diego Grez return fire 01:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If we can't trust Jimbo, who can we trust? He's unfamiliar with our policies, perhaps, but I'm sure he will familiarise himself with them before he tries to review anything, and there has been no misuse here. Until, and unless, he publishes a blatant copyvio to GNews, there's no harm in letting him keep the bit. Who knows, he might even come over here and decide to contribute some day (I once had the pleasure of collaborating on an article with Mr Wales, and he honestly seemed to be really interested in the project). Can't we all just be nice and get along? Δενδοδγε t\c 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I myself am choosing to not participate in this, but as a mere comment upon perusing through this whole discussion, I would suggest that we focus less on who the subject is and more on how to apply WN policy in a situation like this. Just because the subject of this discussion is the founder of WP doesn't mean much in the sense that the subject, instead of Mr. Wales, could have been someone else who is a highly trustworthy user on WP, who is not the founder (I'm suggesting that other users could find themselves in this situation). What I'm saying is that this is an opportunity to determine how to exercise the reviewer policy in situations such as this. In that sense, it really doesn't matter in my opinion who the subject is. Tyrol5 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue should not be about Jimbo specifically. But it's realistically impossible for this RFP not to be about Jimbo specifically. So those other issues you're talking about cannot be properly addressed in this venue. --Pi zero (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Diego, don't be trolled, and don't post incendiary comments please! This should probably be withdrawn and dealt with under the current policy discussion on the water cooler. I find myself unamused at Mr Wales' comments above; yes, this project may well seem 'prickly', or unwelcoming. Those who have made an effort to get involved and learn what are appropriate contributions will, in all probability, dispute such assertions. A stark difference between Wikipedia and Wikinews is that the former is as reliable as the last editor to touch any article (need I trot out Siegenthaler onwards?). Wikinews has actively taken the steps required to be reliable, and this is the entire reason for this policy and this vote.
It should not be a popularity contest, it was perhaps ill-judged for this to be brought up here instead of resolved as part of the cleanup of contributors who have the right due to the early pre-fixed-policy time period, or were granted it for testing/technical reasons. I would, however, note that this privilege is not as mischaracterised in the above earlier vote "easy come, easy go". --Brian McNeil / talk 11:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not going to vote because I don't have an opinion either way on the matter, at least on this specific case, but I do trust Jimbo. I do want to say though, in reply to Jimbo (original post) we are open. I think most of us are kind and accepting. But in all due respect, writing news is a serious matter. Especially when writing on breaking news and original reporting. I can understand people being frustrated with having to read policies and guides to write a news article that might not even be news in a few hours. So we have to treat the situations as such, even if it means being a little, should I say blunt. With that said, I don't want to go through the times since my arrival on Wikinews, that we have appealed to Wikipedia for assistance or asked to be included more on the project. Countless times, and each time Wikipedia seems to be more interested in being "Exclusionary, hostile and petty." Since Wikipedia has their own 'news' section, who needs us right? That is what most Wikipedians think, at least from my experience. And you of all people should know my involvement with Wikinews. Needless to say, 90% of die-hard Wikipedians know we exist and know what we do, so I find it insulting that you would assume we never tried. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that most Wikipedians wish that Wikinews were more popular, more successful, and less hostile. The interproject "fighting" comes almost 100% from Wikinews, and actions like this one are precisely what upset people. I don't assume that no one ever tried - but nor do I ignore that hostility from Wikinews has been devastating to Wikinews. Brian McNeil exhibits the attitude I'm talking about - in spades - above. "ensuring the project's editorial independence cannot be challenged or otherwise questioned" - which has nothing to do with anything. It's paranoia and... frankly insulting to everyone here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uhm, this is Jimbo Wales we're talking about here, it's not like he's intent on screwing the project over. Even if he attained the right through the normal process it's not as if it wouldn't have been a "SNOW support and close" anyway (to borrow from Wikipedia's terminology). -- OlEnglish (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully I'm doubtful that it'd be snow support. This de-reviewer request is currently looking like its heading to no-consensus, if a request for reviewer for him would have generated a snow support, then I'd expect this request to be a snow keep, which it clearly is not. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How can this issue possibly be worth the energy expended on it as the other issues facing this site (as I gather from reading such places as Wikinews:Water cooler/policy) need this energy and effort to resolve? Meanwhile, the creating and review of articles seems to be languishing and the involvement of active editors seems to drop. Is Jimbo causig such damage as to warrant this? Mattisse (talk) 01:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

No. You don't need to get involved in a tit-for-tat flame war with Mr Wales. End it. - Amgine | t 23:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Flagged_revisions/Requests_for_permissions/Archive_7&oldid=4630518"