Oppose request for accreditation to facilitate interviewing, based on the accomplishment of having demonstrated unsuitability for interviewing. The issues involved are too serious for it to work properly as dark humor. --Pi zero (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose per the issues that you had with the Chiaki Hayashi interview. red-thunder. 13:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Not a chance. Are you serious? I can't help but think this is a ploy on the road to stirring up trouble, based on your awful past behavior. To quote the "Accomplishments[sic]" you list in full: "This previously published article has been deleted over serious concerns surrounding the handling of the interview it related to, misrepresentation of self by the interviewer, inadequate and incompetent review of the article, and a serious failure to respect the source and source's situation as a non-native English speaker." I will be delighted to fail any OR you submit on the grounds of verifiability based on your previous conduct. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs) 15:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
So does it means that Wikinews will never publish my interviews anymore? --Saki (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I would deem it highly unlikely, although with very vigorous and independent verification direct with the source I may consider it. Blood Red Sandman(Talk)(Contribs) 16:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Oppose due to the interview calamity, which I have spent the past half hour looking through. I would at the very least gain back community trust by writing a large number of non-OR reports before applying for accreditation. If I'm honest, I would suggest withdrawal from this process. WackyWacetalk 16:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I withdraw. Don't want to see red boxes anymore. --Saki (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
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.