text:
Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 7

Requests
Closed a successful. — Mike moral  ♪♫  00:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See User_talk:Kayau. 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)

Votes

 * I trust Kayau not to exceed what xe's ready for. --Pi zero (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * as user already appears to know what makes reviewing easier (eg trimming unneeded sources). --Brian McNeil / talk 13:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - I'm certainly happy with this. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * - You misspelled 'typo.' :) Was that intentional? --Ashershow1talk 17:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course. :D Kayau (talk · contribs) 04:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * , this rfp seems redundant to me Diego Grez return fire 17:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * , of course! DEN  DODGE  17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * per adminship passing fine; suggest speedy closing this because it was only meant to make sure the community trusted Kayau with reviewer rights.  — fetch · comms  00:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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! Go b l i n  02:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * Absolutely. Trusted editor from other projects, we need reviewers. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But I'd rather he contribute more articles. Phearson (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - User looks trustworthy and competent on other projects, but I simply cannot support a new user this early on. I'd recommend writing a few more articles, reading Reviewing articles, and then renominating yourself in a couple weeks. --Ashershow1talk 03:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So nice of you to assume I've not read the policy before bringing this here - one of a number of reasons I lurked as long as I did. Nonetheless, thanks for the comments (which I had addressed in my, err, "statement") though let it be known if this fails I won't be re-applying in a hurry because I'm not that sort of person - no big deal, and all that. Ta. Go b l i n  03:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * but create a decent userpage! Diego Grez return fire 03:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather stick to writing news than spending time creating a userpage tbf, but I will see what I can do! <tt>;-)</tt> Go b l i n  11:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Minimalism is one way to go. Even just User Wikinews reviewer would suffice to keep your user page from showing as a redlink on page histories.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problems here. — Mike moral  ♪♫  03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? We ought to have more reviewers - it can be irritating when a non-reviewer's change isn't reviewed for half a day or so. Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * —reviewer requirements have become insane lately. Bluegoblin7 is obviously a trustworthy, mature, user, who is committed to the project and has demonstrated excellent knowledge of our policies and style. I have no qualms whatsoever about giving him the tools. DEN  DODGE  16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * For all there's only three articles, the quality of these shows clear understanding of project requirements. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Four now! <tt>;-)</tt> Go b l i n  16:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, the trams are taking over! :p Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he's demonstrated both that he knows what he's doing and that he can be trusted. Bawolff ☺☻ 18:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems ready for the hands-on phase of learning to review. --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tyrol5 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you've made 70 edits since a week ago and only written a few articles. I know what great work you've done at simplewiki, but I don't feel comfortable giving anyone without at least a few weeks experience and ~ten articles reviewer permissions because WN is more complicated than it looks.  — fetch · comms  03:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As a side note, when I got the reviewer right, I'd only written three articles and has less than 50 edits. The requirements for reviewer have gone up greatly. — Mike moral  ♪♫  05:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here, about ~50 edits and I was already asking for reviewer. Want to know why the project has been struggling to get anything done recently? Unnecessary publication rigmarole and lack of reviewing userbase chokes output. We're heading down the path of Nupedia. Tempodivalse [talk]  13:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

I 'gave up' the right last night thinking I was leaving, but I made a mistake. Please and thanks. -- Nascar 1996  (talk • 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. -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * 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)
 * 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)

Votes

 * ; 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)
 * for (probably) obvious reasons. — μ 19:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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 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)

...and votes

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * per Tempo. Diego Grez return fire 21:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 07:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * . You need more experience with creating articles. You might also choose to copy-edit some as well. -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 04:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - 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)

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) 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 10:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Extended for a day or so to allow responses to Yurtletturtle's comments. — μ 10:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments, questions...
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)
 * 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 10:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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 06:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

...and votes

 * 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)

 * Diego Grez return fire 14:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As RfP is not a vote, care to elaborate? — μ 14:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing has changed since last request. That's an automatic no for me. Diego Grez return fire 14:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 08:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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

 * 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)
 * 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 08:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Granted Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

...and votes

 * Diego Grez return fire 00:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tempodivalse [talk]  15:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Previous work looks good to me. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻ 20:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User shows grasp of local policy/processes, and decent wordsmanship. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yes :)--Sahim (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, confident Mono has sufficient experience to be a good reviewer. C628 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Has clue, will not misuse. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 20:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tyrol5 (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * User knows what to do. -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

===Ken1000 (talk · contribs · deleted – Edit rights)=== I am new to Wiki but I'm a trustworthy person. Thanks. —Ken1000 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments, questions...

 * 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)

...and votes

 * Your only created your account hours ago. Please familiarize yourself with policy and write a few articles. — Mike moral  ♪♫  06:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 16:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Account too young, no content experience. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Done per no opposition in 48 hours. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

...and votes

 * Has demonstrated sound work and project understanding.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * , per above. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 20:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no reasons not to support him. Diego Grez return fire 23:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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

(Re-grant)
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)
 * As BarkingFish knows, xe has my full support in xyr request. --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * , as long as you promise never to quote Aleksandr Orlov ever again. — μ 14:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻ 17:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - the very fact you instantly gave up the tools and were so reluctant to ask for them back shows that you appreciate what happened, and makes me confident you'll be fine with the right given back. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Diego Grez return fire 18:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * : BarkingFish has learned his lesson, and can be trusted not to make the same mistake again. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 14:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tyrol5 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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)

Comments and questions

 * - 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)

Votes

 * . Have seen the user around - seems to be doing a good job, understands how wn works. I feel the user will be a good reviewer. Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 02:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * , we really need more reviewers. User has my full trust. Tempodivalse [talk]  03:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned. First, this is not "patent nonsense", it's French. Second, I don't know if six articles is enough (in 2.5 months' time, even), and the candidate even said he wasn't planning to run so soon. But reviewer is not a huge deal, we need more of them, and frankly, I think this user is usually pretty clueful.  — fetch · comms  04:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure this user will do fine as a reviewer. — Mike moral  ♪♫  06:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Trustworthy, clueful, likely to learn from each review xe does. Knows when to give out a promising newcomer award :-).  --Pi zero (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * another good user to have come accross from en.wp recently. Knows what xe's up to, seems to grasp style guide and the review process. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 07:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bawolff ☺☻ 17:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Helpful user, completely agree with above reasons. --Diego Grez return fire 18:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * : A trustworthy user who has clue and has shown an ability to learn quickly. And we need all the help we can get. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 20:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Closed as no consensus. — Mike moral  ♪♫  20:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

Comments and questions

 * 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)

Votes

 * we need more reviewers. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blood Red as nom - writing and copyediting are exactly the skills a reviewer requires.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - Needs to do much more in the way of writing before trying for this, barely been with the project for a month or so. Cut your teeth on a few more articles and come back in a month or two. BarkingFish (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Usually, I'd say "needs more experience", but we need more reviewers, Mattisse is a great writer, and has significant experience from enwiki. Unfortunately, that story didn't end so well, and I'm just hoping no sockpuppetry will ensue here.  — fetch · comms  00:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I would think this user would be ready anyway. -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 02:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I understand BarkingFish's concern, really the only things I think might trip you up would be differences from conventional news practice. See my comment, above.  --Pi zero (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We do need reviewers and I feel this user will do well. — Mike moral  ♪♫  06:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * . — μ 14:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ; copyedits are great, but I want to see more... something I cannot remember right now... how was it called... oh, got it! Articles. ;) Otherwise you should be fine. Should have been honest from the beginning, I don't trust you just yet. Diego Grez return fire 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - an excellent and trustworthy editor.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Although we need more reviewers, I feel that the user should stick around a bit longer (perhaps a few weeks to a month) and apply again later. I'd like to see a few more articles from this user. Tyrol5 (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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 13:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Votes

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * I don't wanna flat-out oppose, because progress is clear and I'm confident reviewer will come to you. However, I'm not happy to support just yet either. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * - I'm pretty sure I got reviewer with about the same amount of experience, if not less, and Yurtle seems to know what he's doing. Given the length of review queues lately, I'm more than willing to give him a chance. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 23:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * . Essentially, per Blood Red Sandman. Diego Grez return fire 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't let other (unrelated) votes influence your decision here. ~YTT T 00:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Okay. That's fine. Oh, and now five articles =p.~YTT T 00:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 * - 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)
 * 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)

Removal
Closed as keep. — Mike moral  ♪♫  01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * See also: WC/P. — μ 22:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * Common sense applies; this is obviously the place to put it. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)

 * No way, Jimbo is the walrus, plus he is not active here and will never be, surely. --Diego Grez return fire 16:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * It is fair to call the right symbolic, and to note that Jimbo is trustworthy; which made me . 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)
 * 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)
 * . 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)

 * - trusted user. No valid reason to remove.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * Keep Jimbo can be trusted to use the reviewer right appropriately should he choose to do so. 62.25.109.195 (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

 * , 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Perhaps you should login so we know who you are. --Diego Grez return fire 01:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

 * 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? Δεν δοδγε  t\c 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

 * 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)

 * 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)
 * 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)

 * . 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)
 * 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)

 * . 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 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)

es:Wikinoticias:Solicitudes a burócratas fa:ویکی‌خبر:ویرایشگران/تقاضای مجوز fr:Wikinews:Requête aux bureaucrates pt:Wikinotícias:Pedidos a burocratas

Comments
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)
 * That is perhaps the case; but, do you expect me to sit by and be subjected to libel?--Brian McNeil / talk 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I expect you will not feed trolls who are not, in fact, interested enough in the squabble to check their facts. This isn't supporting the site mission. -  Amgine | t 23:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And the services of Carter Fuck are,... Expensive. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * User talk:Jimbo Wales This is somewhat pertinent. I suggest that everyone involved in the discussion read it — think of it as required reading for those requiring a primer to Wikinews. — μ 01:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


text: User talk:Ruvald

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Ruvald


text: User talk:TanDazhi

title: User talk:TanDazhi


text: User talk:Madinca88

title: User talk:Madinca88


text: User talk:Reillkir

title: User talk:Reillkir


text: User talk:Anmezaf

title: User talk:Anmezaf


text: User talk:Solomon616

title: User talk:Solomon616


text: User talk:Mikael.goteborg

title: User talk:Mikael.goteborg


text: User talk:TwoDaysLaterFan

title: User talk:TwoDaysLaterFan


text: User talk:Aacastillo

title: User talk:Aacastillo


text: User talk:Starkgr20

title: User talk:Starkgr20


text: User talk:USC 84

title: User talk:USC 84


text: User talk:Horseracing12

title: User talk:Horseracing12


text: User talk:Grapesoda22

title: User talk:Grapesoda22


text: User talk:Ronnierber

title: User talk:Ronnierber


text: User talk:Lovetinkle

title: User talk:Lovetinkle


text: User talk:Alfonzoh09

title: User talk:Alfonzoh09


text: User talk:İkbal izci

title: User talk:İkbal izci


text: User talk:Sodos.rana

title: User talk:Sodos.rana


text: User talk:UGWUNNA

title: User talk:UGWUNNA


text: User talk:בש

title: User talk:בש


text: User talk:Neorider5000

title: User talk:Neorider5000


text: User talk:Sidharth707

title: User talk:Sidharth707


text: User talk:Dsaaew

title: User talk:Dsaaew


text: User talk:CELSO LION

title: User talk:CELSO LION


text: User talk:Jehosapha

title: User talk:Jehosapha


text: User talk:Cashloans121

title: User talk:Cashloans121


text: User talk:Nguyenhaitrieu2222

title: User talk:Nguyenhaitrieu2222


text: User talk:Dem1995

title: User talk:Dem1995


text: User talk:Geoneo50

title: User talk:Geoneo50


text: User talk:TurmericCheeseburger

title: User talk:TurmericCheeseburger


text: User talk:Ljh1977

title: User talk:Ljh1977


text: User talk:Arslongavitabre

title: User talk:Arslongavitabre


text: User talk:Rawbnasty1208

title: User talk:Rawbnasty1208


text: User talk:Masquedefer78

title: User talk:Masquedefer78


text: User talk:Mones chery

title: User talk:Mones chery


text: User talk:Max Ac

title: User talk:Max Ac


text: User talk:Arthitsutjarit

title: User talk:Arthitsutjarit


text: User talk:Harsaikron

title: User talk:Harsaikron


text: User talk:KRBM

title: User talk:KRBM


text: User talk:Mickyblueshoes

title: User talk:Mickyblueshoes


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Could this happen in the UK?

Just wondering if anyone knows if the current UK/US/Europe leg. would allow same thing their?


text: User talk:Littlekaa

title: User talk:Littlekaa


text:
Thread:Comments:Wikinews interviews Jim Hedges, U.S. Prohibition Party presidential candidate/Future of the Prohibiton party?

Interesting interview. I wonder if the Prohibition party will ever merge with some similar socially conservative political party. Seems hard to run an entire political party around one issue.--Ashershow1talk 02:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


text: User talk:MiguelF

title: User talk:MiguelF


text: User talk:Stephenmarkj77

title: User talk:Stephenmarkj77


text: User talk:ResidentAnthropologist

title: User talk:ResidentAnthropologist


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Could this happen in the UK?/reply

Considering that none of the European, nor the United States governments are dictatorships, I'd say no, unless one of them goes mad, etc. Something very unlikely.


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Video/reply (2)

That's content from a competing news source! No way!


text: User talk:Waltigs

title: User talk:Waltigs


text: User talk:Cabrande

title: User talk:Cabrande


text: User talk:Leefar & rein

title: User talk:Leefar & rein


text: User talk:Efenna

title: User talk:Efenna


text: User talk:Tillj123

title: User talk:Tillj123


text: User talk:AnarchMonarch

title: User talk:AnarchMonarch


text: User talk:Mayfare

title: User talk:Mayfare


text:
Thread:Comments:Los Angeles City Council to sue police officer accused of filing a false report/WoW ReALLy/reply

I agree wholeheartedly, he needs to be held accountable for what he's done, not only to the state, but also to those kids stuck in a situation that wasn't even real. Had he spoke the truth about what happened, I believe a less strict punishment would have been instituted, but instead, he took it to another level and for that, he's paying now.


text: User talk:Brent Kunz

title: User talk:Brent Kunz


text: User talk:Aboltin11

title: User talk:Aboltin11


text: User talk:Cherumba

title: User talk:Cherumba


text: User talk:Jamaicancontributor

title: User talk:Jamaicancontributor


text:
Thread:Comments:Four killed, fourteen others injured at bus blast in Philippines/bus bombs

How can four people die and 14 be injured when some on the bus did not hear the explosion. It is so sad. I am an Aussie married to a filipina and we were going to retire to the Philippines but not too sure now.


text: User talk:Nanii0711

title: User talk:Nanii0711


text: User talk:Marioalberto89

title: User talk:Marioalberto89


text: User talk:Isma3il 6600

title: User talk:Isma3il 6600


text: User talk:Reezy macc

title: User talk:Reezy macc


text: User talk:Omuneru

title: User talk:Omuneru


text: User talk:Coolzero74

title: User talk:Coolzero74


text: User talk:ULove

title: User talk:ULove


text: User talk:Rajivrkp

title: User talk:Rajivrkp


text: User talk:Vivekdeep36

title: User talk:Vivekdeep36


text: User talk:Pranita joshi

title: User talk:Pranita joshi


text: User talk:Karthi.dr

title: User talk:Karthi.dr


text: User talk:Aniruddhashome

title: User talk:Aniruddhashome


text: User talk:Dima aliev

title: User talk:Dima aliev


text: User talk:16karateka

title: User talk:16karateka


text: User talk:Altyne

title: User talk:Altyne


text: User talk:Placementhub

title: User talk:Placementhub


text: User talk:Netxiao

title: User talk:Netxiao


text: User talk:Bravo Foxtrot

title: User talk:Bravo Foxtrot


text: User talk:FurtiveFalcon

title: User talk:FurtiveFalcon


text: User talk:Jambalaya 007

title: User talk:Jambalaya 007


text: User talk:Avicennaturk

title: User talk:Avicennaturk


text: User talk:Amyryim

title: User talk:Amyryim


text: User talk:SchultzyContrillion

title: User talk:SchultzyContrillion


text: User talk:Prseknldge

title: User talk:Prseknldge


text: User talk:Mlelao

title: User talk:Mlelao


text: User talk:印象广德

title: User talk:印象广德


text: User talk:Milque

title: User talk:Milque


text: User talk:M4zzolank

title: User talk:M4zzolank


text: User talk:Neuherb

title: User talk:Neuherb


text: User talk:Drritesh77

title: User talk:Drritesh77


text: User talk:Tomjackfan

title: User talk:Tomjackfan


text: User talk:Aftab222000

title: User talk:Aftab222000


text: User talk:Rahul54321

title: User talk:Rahul54321


text: User talk:Sainineeraj

title: User talk:Sainineeraj


text: User talk:Corvotorvo

title: User talk:Corvotorvo


text: User talk:Lchuago

title: User talk:Lchuago


text: User talk:Ketchupketchup.

title: User talk:Ketchupketchup.


text: User talk:Meykandan

title: User talk:Meykandan


text: User talk:Scampioen

title: User talk:Scampioen


text: User talk:Marcpassiontravel

title: User talk:Marcpassiontravel


text: User talk:Cerenbaytasoglu

title: User talk:Cerenbaytasoglu


text: User talk:Fel.dina

title: User talk:Fel.dina


text: User talk:Nigel Harniman

title: User talk:Nigel Harniman


text: User talk:Tchouaeib

title: User talk:Tchouaeib


text: User talk:Adhitya.wiraguna

title: User talk:Adhitya.wiraguna


text: User talk:AnaStaSky

title: User talk:AnaStaSky


text: User talk:Zajko1301

title: User talk:Zajko1301


text: User talk:Allensoliman

title: User talk:Allensoliman


text: User talk:Sofiamarkarian

title: User talk:Sofiamarkarian


text: User talk:Hery hj

title: User talk:Hery hj


text: User talk:Wlady24

title: User talk:Wlady24


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Could this happen in the UK?/reply (2)

Also, the conditions we have here in the US or Western Nations are much better than their's. People are starving over there, we don't have people starving. The closest I would say we got to a revolution was in 2008 around the financial collaspe.


text: User talk:Xv6brandon

title: User talk:Xv6brandon


text: User talk:Avadhesh9

title: User talk:Avadhesh9


text: User talk:Udaykiranpopuri

title: User talk:Udaykiranpopuri


text: User talk:Zucchini cristina

title: User talk:Zucchini cristina


text: User talk:Sinhacure

title: User talk:Sinhacure


text: User talk:Arshdpsngh

title: User talk:Arshdpsngh


text: User talk:Atanuroy15

title: User talk:Atanuroy15


text: User talk:Madhu.cbit.074

title: User talk:Madhu.cbit.074


text: User talk:Lisner

title: User talk:Lisner


text: User talk:Harridy

title: User talk:Harridy


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Could this happen in the UK?/reply (3)

Historically, most (all?) of the 1930s dictatorships were elected rather complacently. I don't think any revolutions happened in western Europe, even when the dictators were pretty evil.


text: User talk:Brovinne

title: User talk:Brovinne


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Video/reply (3)

Having said that, we allow PD sources such as VoA to be used as actual content; CC-BY-3.0 is a compatible licence with Wikinews. We're allowed to use it if we want, it's an editorial choice and not a legal one.

Did I mention that you appear to have accidentally used Papyrus in your signature, Mono?

And this is the wrong namespace for this sort of discussion :D


text: User talk:Felicevaleria

title: User talk:Felicevaleria


text: User talk:Knowledgepo

title: User talk:Knowledgepo


text: User talk:LUIZ ALBERTO JOSE CORREA

title: User talk:LUIZ ALBERTO JOSE CORREA


text: User talk:Sara Bush

title: User talk:Sara Bush


text:
User:Hydriz

Hi, I am Hydriz. Please visit my userpage on Meta for more information about me.

title: User:Hydriz


text: User talk:RxWatch

title: User talk:RxWatch


text: User talk:Magicglas

title: User talk:Magicglas


text: User talk:Zombi209

title: User talk:Zombi209


text: User talk:Gerbeda

title: User talk:Gerbeda


text: User talk:Rajivg

title: User talk:Rajivg


text: User talk:Ishfaqhaddad

title: User talk:Ishfaqhaddad


text: User talk:Hermannanthe

title: User talk:Hermannanthe


text: User talk:Sawan97

title: User talk:Sawan97


text: User talk:Senacute

title: User talk:Senacute


text: User talk:Ovguyagiz

title: User talk:Ovguyagiz


text: User talk:Anton gultom

title: User talk:Anton gultom


text: User talk:HuyKwi

title: User talk:HuyKwi


text: User talk:Shreyas Pai

title: User talk:Shreyas Pai


text: User talk:Prakhar kumar

title: User talk:Prakhar kumar


text: User talk:Sanrac1959

title: User talk:Sanrac1959


text: User talk:TheOCflash

title: User talk:TheOCflash


text: User talk:Mihir3

title: User talk:Mihir3


text: User talk:Koishore36

title: User talk:Koishore36


text: User talk:Georgy90

title: User talk:Georgy90


text: User talk:Mokhman

title: User talk:Mokhman


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Could this happen in the UK?/reply (4)

There are similarities between a capitailist (so called) democracy and dictatorships, once a political party/parties are in power they pretty much dictate what happens in that country. We may have things better here but since the financial collapse the gap between rich and poor has widened, less well paid working people are struggling to make ends meet due to job losses, rising fuel, energy and food prices. It may not be the same level of poverty as many other nations who have things much worse, but it is relative poverty. Still my orginal question not really answered, theortically at a time of political unrest ect....do the western nations goverments have the power to legally shut down the internet?


text: User talk:Vatta anna maria

title: User talk:Vatta anna maria


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Comments from feedback form - "This artical i read after bbc...."/reply

Actually, I think that's what WN is for. :)


text: User talk:Payal0509

title: User talk:Payal0509


text: User talk:Djvhall

title: User talk:Djvhall


text: User talk:İsosfer

title: User talk:İsosfer


text: User talk:Chismann07

title: User talk:Chismann07


text: User talk:Luis omar vazquez

title: User talk:Luis omar vazquez


text: User talk:Ranguapoorva

title: User talk:Ranguapoorva


text: User talk:Luckyamar

title: User talk:Luckyamar


text: User talk:MakHosain

title: User talk:MakHosain


text: User talk:Imen24

title: User talk:Imen24


text: User talk:Icerockets

title: User talk:Icerockets


text: User talk:Centuryce

title: User talk:Centuryce


text: User talk:Campaspero

title: User talk:Campaspero


text: User talk:Hueno

title: User talk:Hueno


text: User talk:RJ870

title: User talk:RJ870


text: User talk:Ashishkunmun

title: User talk:Ashishkunmun


text: User talk:Slobodan Pavlovic

title: User talk:Slobodan Pavlovic


text: User talk:Sighens

title: User talk:Sighens


text: User talk:Crabsflop

title: User talk:Crabsflop


text: User talk:Katublefa

title: User talk:Katublefa


text: User talk:Jakebradley

title: User talk:Jakebradley


text: User talk:Roohaniyat

title: User talk:Roohaniyat


text: User talk:Union-funk

title: User talk:Union-funk


text: User talk:Shaggy9793

title: User talk:Shaggy9793


text: User talk:Susila M.A.

title: User talk:Susila M.A.


text: User talk:Katie548

title: User talk:Katie548


text: User talk:Vintukasfertas

title: User talk:Vintukasfertas


text: User talk:Aquadelusion

title: User talk:Aquadelusion


text: User talk:Ajungmoon

title: User talk:Ajungmoon


text: User talk:Jaivikp2

title: User talk:Jaivikp2


text: User talk:Mbadingamomoussavou

title: User talk:Mbadingamomoussavou


text: User talk:Kuive

title: User talk:Kuive


text: User talk:Adeery

title: User talk:Adeery


text: User talk:Kuka B

title: User talk:Kuka B


text: User talk:Damianferens

title: User talk:Damianferens


text: User talk:Dwiki26

title: User talk:Dwiki26


text: User talk:M. Samsul Ma'Arif

title: User talk:M. Samsul Ma'Arif


text: User talk:Ye men

title: User talk:Ye men


text: User talk:Abenyusuf

title: User talk:Abenyusuf


text: User talk:Mcvicker.scott

title: User talk:Mcvicker.scott


text: User talk:Natanaell

title: User talk:Natanaell


text: User talk:Jinidu

title: User talk:Jinidu


text: User talk:Slad8243

title: User talk:Slad8243


text: User talk:Yogiyogesh89

title: User talk:Yogiyogesh89


text: User talk:Gencerdemir

title: User talk:Gencerdemir


text: User talk:Atyra.90

title: User talk:Atyra.90


text: User talk:Ledelich

title: User talk:Ledelich


text: User talk:Rain.sibin

title: User talk:Rain.sibin


text: User talk:Luckylinck711

title: User talk:Luckylinck711


text: User talk:Alonovana

title: User talk:Alonovana


text: User talk:Antoniomicev

title: User talk:Antoniomicev


text: User talk:Diegolindolfo100

title: User talk:Diegolindolfo100


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Video/reply (4)

If you 'dare post VoA propaganda, I'll arrange an extraordinary rendition, and you can sit with that as your only news source before debating if they're unbiased.

We don't allow unfiltered VoA; some people have exploited the compatible licensing. Guess what? That 'hope of ignorance/unwariness' is intentional, or at least a most fortuitous side-effect of USA inc. publication policy.


text: User talk:Ballagny

title: User talk:Ballagny


text: User talk:BrianClSa

title: User talk:BrianClSa


text: User talk:Footykc

title: User talk:Footykc


text:
BBC to cut Electric Proms for financial reasons

February 2, 2011

The BBC have announced they are to axe annual music festival from their schedule for financial reasons. The festival first took place in October 2006. The 2011 event will not go ahead, with last year's festival being the last.

, controller of BBC Radio 2, said he was "disappointed" with the decision to cancel the festival. He said "In the current climate, we are faced with making difficult decisions, including how best to deliver high-quality live music programming throughout the year in light of continuing efficiency savings. I feel that Radio 2 can achieve the same impact of the Electric Proms in an alternative, more cost-effective way. I'm disappointed that the lifetime of Electric Proms has come to an end, but very proud of its fantastically rewarding run of creating new moments in music for the past five years."

During the festival's five year run it has featured performances from stars such as Elton John,, and.

The decision to axe the festival comes at a time when the BBC are planning a 20% savings cut. Last week BBC director general announced 650 job losses after dropping five languages from the.


text: User talk:Kanazbah

title: User talk:Kanazbah


text: User talk:HGhazaryan

title: User talk:HGhazaryan


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Video/reply (5)

Apologies for the unfortunate wording of my above post. My point was simply (meant to be) that we are allowed to post VoA drivel, but that we choose not to (for good reason). It's always fun when a "reliable and authorative" news source shows "objective" news features trying to imply that the fall of Saddam Hussein was the trigger of the Tunisian protests.


text: User talk:Tomw33

title: User talk:Tomw33


text: User talk:Rafael Pribolšan

title: User talk:Rafael Pribolšan


text: User talk:Ihechi inemem

title: User talk:Ihechi inemem


text: User talk:Shojijo79

title: User talk:Shojijo79


text: User talk:Ernawati.zul

title: User talk:Ernawati.zul


text: User talk:Terminatorjt

title: User talk:Terminatorjt


text: User talk:Maher Al-Wahhash

title: User talk:Maher Al-Wahhash


text: User talk:Paralyz3

title: User talk:Paralyz3


text: User talk:Karst meijer

title: User talk:Karst meijer


text: User talk:Leonardo Ramirez Quiceno

title: User talk:Leonardo Ramirez Quiceno


text: User talk:Tiriganiq

title: User talk:Tiriganiq


text: User talk:Gmenik77

title: User talk:Gmenik77


text: User talk:ChazZeromus

title: User talk:ChazZeromus


text: User talk:Johnathan.martinez

title: User talk:Johnathan.martinez


text: User talk:Wil1295

title: User talk:Wil1295


text: User talk:Wewillrockyou4eva

title: User talk:Wewillrockyou4eva


text: User talk:Toomanytaxis

title: User talk:Toomanytaxis


text: User talk:Clapette

title: User talk:Clapette


text: User talk:NovaMass98

title: User talk:NovaMass98


text: User talk:Troyvandermeer

title: User talk:Troyvandermeer


text: User talk:Rolandocarbonel

title: User talk:Rolandocarbonel


text: User talk:HenryMorales

title: User talk:HenryMorales


text: User talk:Vermont1998

title: User talk:Vermont1998


text: User talk:John boy will

title: User talk:John boy will


text: User talk:Dani-lpgc

title: User talk:Dani-lpgc


text: User talk:Adel alhadrami

title: User talk:Adel alhadrami


text: User talk:Charlie Lawrimore

title: User talk:Charlie Lawrimore


text: User talk:Parodyy

title: User talk:Parodyy


text: User talk:Jaliscan

title: User talk:Jaliscan


text: User talk:RaquelDias

title: User talk:RaquelDias


text: User talk:Xsamx97

title: User talk:Xsamx97


text: User talk:Joesla

title: User talk:Joesla


text: User talk:Сергий серый

title: User talk:Сергий серый


text: User talk:Lol654236

title: User talk:Lol654236


text: User talk:PippiSue

title: User talk:PippiSue


text: User talk:Ajboss

title: User talk:Ajboss


text: User talk:Walden ramirez

title: User talk:Walden ramirez


text: User talk:Ronny Lopez Gonzalez

title: User talk:Ronny Lopez Gonzalez


text: User talk:Андрей Кулик

title: User talk:Андрей Кулик


text: User talk:Songpholb

title: User talk:Songpholb


text: User talk:Shahen1994

title: User talk:Shahen1994


text: User talk:Barladeanutudor

title: User talk:Barladeanutudor


text:
Thread:Comments:Wikinews interviews Jim Hedges, U.S. Prohibition Party presidential candidate/Future of the Prohibiton party?/reply

Consider the success of the Greek Hunters' Party (well, it's not THAT much of a success; but still, it's quite successful for a one-issue-party). Regarding merging, I think that if Mr. Hedges keeps to his intelligent strategy explained in the second question his party will grow enough to not need to merge, although it is a possibility.


text: User talk:Taka42

title: User talk:Taka42


text: User talk:İmpuls-007

title: User talk:İmpuls-007


text: User talk:Echecalger

title: User talk:Echecalger


text: User talk:Camiloflecher

title: User talk:Camiloflecher


text: User talk:Lina marecla

title: User talk:Lina marecla


text: Template:W

title: Template:W


text: User talk:Canard-dormeur

title: User talk:Canard-dormeur


text: User talk:Эдуард Шерешевский

title: User talk:Эдуард Шерешевский


text:
User talk:76.119.53.152

Our submission guidelines
I'd like to let you know that here at the English Wikinews, we only accept English language news. You've recently made contributions that don't qualify as news. We appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept the edits you've made, so they have been reverted or deleted.

In the future, if you'd like to submit news, we are more than happy to have your help! Just make sure to check out this article, which talks about what Wikinews is not.

Thank you for your contributions! Gopher65talk 23:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:76.119.53.152


text:
Category:Pages with defaulting non-local links

__HIDDENCAT__

These are pages that contain non-local links generated by calls to w.

The non-existent local targets of those w calls may be candidates for creation. A possible procedure:
 * Create the Wikinews category to which the local target would redirect.
 * Consider populating that category before creating the redirect, so that text links to it will already be useful when first introduced.
 * Create the target redirect to the created category.

fa:رده:صفحات با پیوندهای غیرمحلی پیش‌فرض


text: User talk:Cbx250

title: User talk:Cbx250


text:
Template talk:W

/Archive 1

Sister parameter
The sister parameter could be better explained for use for non-Wikipedia linking. There is just one example for Wiktionary which says to used code "wikt" but what are the abbreviations for other projects. Perhaps "sister" needs to be added to the parameter table. Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Parameter tables being, as I understand, a peripheral detail of the WMF's mind-bogglingly incompetent choice of direction. Their existence makes my blood boil, which likely diminishes my usefulness in that regard. I'll see what I can do about improving the prose documentation. --Pi zero (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

title: Template talk:W


text: User talk:Jumail Fareed

title: User talk:Jumail Fareed


text: User talk:MasterAlex

title: User talk:MasterAlex


text: User talk:Supsamuels

title: User talk:Supsamuels


text: User talk:Republic of Verendium

title: User talk:Republic of Verendium


text: User talk:Chrismdor

title: User talk:Chrismdor


text: User talk:Ijustino

title: User talk:Ijustino


text: User talk:EdDsSoON

title: User talk:EdDsSoON


text: User talk:Prathik171190

title: User talk:Prathik171190


text: User talk:Marwil gutierrez

title: User talk:Marwil gutierrez


text: User talk:Klauhdiaa

title: User talk:Klauhdiaa


text: User talk:Anas chaboun

title: User talk:Anas chaboun


text: User talk:Carkie13

title: User talk:Carkie13


text: User talk:Corruptcongress

title: User talk:Corruptcongress


text: User talk:Twopaul

title: User talk:Twopaul


text: User talk:Jedi94

title: User talk:Jedi94


text: User talk:Tomloarie

title: User talk:Tomloarie


text: User talk:Paolla Lopez

title: User talk:Paolla Lopez


text: User talk:Mikez23

title: User talk:Mikez23


text: User talk:Lala higuita

title: User talk:Lala higuita


text: User talk:Cc21002

title: User talk:Cc21002


text: User talk:APGillies

title: User talk:APGillies


text: User talk:Swordfish6988

title: User talk:Swordfish6988


text: User talk:Cintia540fly

title: User talk:Cintia540fly


text: User talk:Mahitown

title: User talk:Mahitown


text: User talk:Robtcoats

title: User talk:Robtcoats


text: User talk:Pfmiller

title: User talk:Pfmiller


text: User talk:Scubasteve129

title: User talk:Scubasteve129


text: User talk:Zdc1Boi

title: User talk:Zdc1Boi


text: User talk:Treemily

title: User talk:Treemily


text: User talk:Mattimis

title: User talk:Mattimis


text: User talk:Ortanox

title: User talk:Ortanox


text: User talk:DexterDiaz420

title: User talk:DexterDiaz420


text: User talk:Santosh14345

title: User talk:Santosh14345


text: User talk:Coltsfan8778

title: User talk:Coltsfan8778


text: User talk:Insightcuba

title: User talk:Insightcuba


text: User talk:SlapEnergy

title: User talk:SlapEnergy


text:
User:Katun~enwikinews

This is the name my parents gave me so I made some research of my own and found out that it was the circle before last on the Mayan calendar, the same one used by the Aztecs later on. The last circle is the Baktun, that is supposed to end in the end of 2012 on the Gregorian calendar. It is the thirteenth Baktun making it the last in its class. The Katun cycle will end at the same time the Baktun does but this is not the end of time, this is an awakening for something new. On the pessimist side I would see myself regressed to a third position behind the Baktun and whatever comes next.

A Baktun is approximatly 400 years: There was a Total lunar eclipse that hadn't happened for 380 years in December 2011 We are entering the age of aquarius, supposed to last 2500 or 25,000 years

A Katun is approximatly 20 years I wrote about my name on a piece of paper in a surf town on the west coast of France when I turned 20 years old. I write this on the internet as I am 20 years older.

title: User:Katun~enwikinews


text: User talk:Gymnast.flames07

title: User talk:Gymnast.flames07


text: User talk:AkselSipponen

title: User talk:AkselSipponen


text: User talk:Моисеев Алексей

title: User talk:Моисеев Алексей


text: User talk:Rabi sharma

title: User talk:Rabi sharma


text: User talk:Mdabdullahonly

title: User talk:Mdabdullahonly


text: User talk:Sgeovo

title: User talk:Sgeovo


text: User talk:Rajib manna

title: User talk:Rajib manna


text: User talk:Husky1021

title: User talk:Husky1021


text: User talk:Marvellouse

title: User talk:Marvellouse


text: User talk:Nurrclallucynk

title: User talk:Nurrclallucynk


text: User talk:Leonadeang

title: User talk:Leonadeang


text: User talk:LANCH

title: User talk:LANCH


text: User talk:Bealzer1010

title: User talk:Bealzer1010


text: User talk:Shubhwratkumar

title: User talk:Shubhwratkumar


text: User talk:Dinelsonus

title: User talk:Dinelsonus


text: User talk:I34YR4M

title: User talk:I34YR4M


text: User talk:Heylookitsjon

title: User talk:Heylookitsjon


text: User talk:Byclst70

title: User talk:Byclst70


text: User talk:Philipoginga

title: User talk:Philipoginga


text: User talk:JamesBFuckwad

title: User talk:JamesBFuckwad


text:
User talk:Ryoku~enwikinews

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Ryoku. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Ryoku~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ryoku~enwikinews


text: User talk:Nainasaxena22

title: User talk:Nainasaxena22


text: User talk:Aldokev456

title: User talk:Aldokev456


text: User talk:Rvogireddy

title: User talk:Rvogireddy


text: User talk:Khanareefurrahman

title: User talk:Khanareefurrahman


text: User talk:Mixelixx

title: User talk:Mixelixx


text: User talk:Victoryleader

title: User talk:Victoryleader


text: User talk:Qgun

title: User talk:Qgun


text: User talk:Zarrenle

title: User talk:Zarrenle


text: User talk:Insaniah

title: User talk:Insaniah


text: User talk:Mahadi hasan miraz

title: User talk:Mahadi hasan miraz


text: User talk:Aarshin

title: User talk:Aarshin


text: User talk:Airwings17

title: User talk:Airwings17


text: User talk:Tai.nguyenthien

title: User talk:Tai.nguyenthien


text: User talk:St21105

title: User talk:St21105


text: User talk:Keanne18

title: User talk:Keanne18


text: User talk:Sagigo

title: User talk:Sagigo


text:
User talk:News45

Welcome to News 45, it's talk page and reporter.

Check for messages, specials, promos, errors, warnings, reviews, and blocks.

Blocked
This is not an acceptable user name: it gives an appearance of claiming authority.

To be clear: Wikinews accounts are for individuals, not for organizations.

Do not, ever, publicly reveal your password. For anything, not just for a WMF account. --Pi zero (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:News45


text: User talk:Avinash77777

title: User talk:Avinash77777


text: User talk:Ibnbatuta

title: User talk:Ibnbatuta


text: User talk:ANDRY23

title: User talk:ANDRY23


text: User talk:NutanEnne

title: User talk:NutanEnne


text: User talk:Awan.india

title: User talk:Awan.india


text: User talk:Papula555

title: User talk:Papula555


text: User talk:Idleaway

title: User talk:Idleaway


text: User talk:İlyas 1995

title: User talk:İlyas 1995


text: User talk:TuuB

title: User talk:TuuB


text: User talk:Bhubnesh999

title: User talk:Bhubnesh999


text: User talk:L k chowdary

title: User talk:L k chowdary


text: User talk:Sydivf

title: User talk:Sydivf


text: User talk:Ztl8702

title: User talk:Ztl8702


text: User talk:Phalanetra

title: User talk:Phalanetra


text: User talk:Golies

title: User talk:Golies


text: User talk:Vantrungtran

title: User talk:Vantrungtran


text: User talk:Maris guerra28:)

title: User talk:Maris guerra28:)


text: User talk:Gopikuppusamy

title: User talk:Gopikuppusamy


text: User talk:Tushar Kajare

title: User talk:Tushar Kajare


text: User talk:Valdir Martinez Requena

title: User talk:Valdir Martinez Requena


text: User talk:Pacuvio61

title: User talk:Pacuvio61


text: User talk:哗变馒头

title: User talk:哗变馒头


text: User talk:Flyingfilm

title: User talk:Flyingfilm


text: User talk:Grayheart15

title: User talk:Grayheart15


text: User talk:Surajtharani

title: User talk:Surajtharani


text: User talk:E R Nilsson

title: User talk:E R Nilsson


text: User talk:Marcrobertdean

title: User talk:Marcrobertdean


text: User talk:Nesma83

title: User talk:Nesma83


text: User talk:Sokhikhan

title: User talk:Sokhikhan


text: User talk:Ramakrishna Ponnekanti

title: User talk:Ramakrishna Ponnekanti


text: User talk:LiuXaun

title: User talk:LiuXaun


text: User talk:Arek Niemczyk

title: User talk:Arek Niemczyk


text: User talk:Ogrenci535

title: User talk:Ogrenci535


text: User talk:Djomez

title: User talk:Djomez


text:
User:News45

( ( ( ( ( ( *News 45* ) ) ) ) ) )

Welcome to News 45!! News 45 is a main news, news media, and reporter that reviews, articles, reporters, and more.

title: User:News45


text: User talk:He who smelt it, dealt it

title: User talk:He who smelt it, dealt it


text: User talk:Sadhnaa

title: User talk:Sadhnaa


text: User talk:Oguzco

title: User talk:Oguzco


text: User talk:Neomrbungle

title: User talk:Neomrbungle


text: User talk:אוריה אבזיז

title: User talk:אוריה אבזיז


text: User talk:Lenartmarta

title: User talk:Lenartmarta


text: User talk:Bini31

title: User talk:Bini31


text: User talk:Sazzad511

title: User talk:Sazzad511


text: User talk:Mumyman

title: User talk:Mumyman


text: User talk:JuliusKv

title: User talk:JuliusKv


text: User talk:Nina bondarook

title: User talk:Nina bondarook


text: User talk:Polamaggio

title: User talk:Polamaggio


text: User talk:David-el-k-po98

title: User talk:David-el-k-po98


text: User talk:Dpobel

title: User talk:Dpobel


text: User talk:WJillings

title: User talk:WJillings


text: User talk:Chuo.toukei

title: User talk:Chuo.toukei


text: User talk:Yk9007

title: User talk:Yk9007


text: User talk:Xhslyf

title: User talk:Xhslyf


text: User talk:Hamer19

title: User talk:Hamer19


text: User talk:Teimu.tm

title: User talk:Teimu.tm


text: User talk:Shivanimuralidhar

title: User talk:Shivanimuralidhar


text: User talk:Lokendra1505

title: User talk:Lokendra1505


text:
User talk:Samarium~enwikinews

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Samarium. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Samarium~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Samarium~enwikinews


text: User talk:MushiWay

title: User talk:MushiWay


text: User talk:Kprashanthan

title: User talk:Kprashanthan


text: User talk:Liper10

title: User talk:Liper10


text: User talk:Vijayhbk

title: User talk:Vijayhbk


text: User talk:Janix Pobia

title: User talk:Janix Pobia


text: User talk:Imad-dream-boy

title: User talk:Imad-dream-boy


text: User talk:Dhinesh0079

title: User talk:Dhinesh0079


text: User talk:Adala2011

title: User talk:Adala2011


text: User talk:NEMo Armyanskiy

title: User talk:NEMo Armyanskiy


text: User talk:Hellosirocco

title: User talk:Hellosirocco


text: User talk:Marcowxy

title: User talk:Marcowxy


text: User talk:L.kow

title: User talk:L.kow


text: User talk:AHolosko

title: User talk:AHolosko


text: User talk:Charizarddd2

title: User talk:Charizarddd2


text: User talk:Tiroche

title: User talk:Tiroche


text: User talk:Wac2011

title: User talk:Wac2011


text: User talk:William C. Burton

title: User talk:William C. Burton


text: User talk:YanYanssens

title: User talk:YanYanssens


text: User talk:Wertex51

title: User talk:Wertex51


text: User talk:Midwest Alliance

title: User talk:Midwest Alliance


text: User talk:Zchecri

title: User talk:Zchecri


text: User talk:Elboag

title: User talk:Elboag


text: User talk:Zavy67

title: User talk:Zavy67


text: User talk:Matafan

title: User talk:Matafan


text: User talk:Hashar

title: User talk:Hashar


text: User talk:Darrenthemusic

title: User talk:Darrenthemusic


text: User talk:Omis1750

title: User talk:Omis1750


text: User talk:Venky9999

title: User talk:Venky9999


text: User talk:Krokatuk

title: User talk:Krokatuk


text: User talk:Mmooslin

title: User talk:Mmooslin


text: User talk:Ariel196

title: User talk:Ariel196


text: User talk:Sharon adjei

title: User talk:Sharon adjei


text: User talk:Locobootcamp

title: User talk:Locobootcamp


text: User talk:Abeattie38

title: User talk:Abeattie38


text: User talk:Prorubono

title: User talk:Prorubono