Wikinews:Accreditation requests/Dendodge (reconfirmation)

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

Closed with unanimous support for Dendodge keeping xyr rights. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dendodge (reconfirmation) edit

Per concerns raised about "At least 85 dead in shooting at Norwegian youth camp" regarding the standard of my reporting and journalistic ability, I am standing for reconfirmation of my accredited reporter privileges. DEN DODGE George Watson 23:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Keep The concerns aren't significant enough to stop you from being a net positive for the project. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, in this case, "support" would mean "support removal of rights", although the rest of your comment implies otherwise. Perhaps using "Keep" and "Remove" would be clearer? DEN DODGE George Watson 23:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I support you having the rights. Changed. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Although "keep" is indeed clearer, the motion on this page is to not to remove but to reconfirm, and therefore "support" = "support the motion to reconfirm" = "keep". :-) --Pi zero (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concerns are insignificant. I see no reason for revocation. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, please don't take offense to a minor discussion on sourcing. No one is accusing you of any misconduct as an accredited reporter.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is way overblown. ~~There are only two issues here.~~

Pretty much everyone who does broadcast reports doesn't give the detailed reporter's notes they should; would I like to see everyone do better, yes, but that doesn't bear on anyone's accreditation, let alone specifically on yours.
Mattisse is having trouble understanding OR, and unfortunately came across in an abrasive way, which is no reflection on you.

--Pi zero (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely striking the whole first point. Which leaves Mattisse coming across abrasively (and of course also me worrying too much about Mattisse and not enough about the quality of your notes). --Pi zero (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fully support retention. Dendodge, you did absolutely nothing wrong. You have been the victim of petty pedantry by others who have not actually contributed Original Reporting. Your broadcast report notes were quite acceptable, and the issue with use of machine translation was blown out-of-proportion. You, wisely, limited such to extremely short quotes as-opposed to using a complete machine translation. The somewhat personal attack against the integrity of your work for such deserves an apology. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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