Wikinews

Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 2

< Wikinews:Flagged revisions | Requests for permissions
Sep 2008 - May 2009
May 2009 - Sep 2009
Sep 2009 - Jan 2010
Jan 2010 - Apr 2010
Apr 2010 - Jul 2010
Aug 2010 - Dec 2010
Jan 2011 - Apr 2011
Apr 2011 - Aug 2015
Aug 2015 - present
This is an archive of past flagged revisions requests for permissions.

Do not edit the contents of this page.

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


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.



SusanLesch (talk · contribs)

edit
Closed per user request. Unsuccessful. --Brian McNeil / talk 17
17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am new to Wikinews other than setting up the bot for Portal:Minnesota. I made some edits to a recent article and might contribute more. Thank you either way. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
Thank you for the pointer, Calebrw. I have looked through all of those links and I note that "The Wikinews Policies and guidelines are fundamentally based on the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines" which should be easy to follow. This is going on my third year in Wikipedia. -SusanLesch (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a very different animal, the most-used WN:NOT axiom is, Wikinews is not Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Now a user asks me to stop editing this article from June 30. So how would you suggest I fix it? The sources I added are from June 30. -SusanLesch (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews articles are not a work-in-progress. It must be taken into consideration that after publication they move down the front page and into history. In most cases substantive edits should not be made 24+ hours after publication. This is very important for maintaining Wikinews articles as a historical record and supports my reasoning for voting oppose below. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wish I had stopped by earlier. All of my additions were known at the time, by about 18:30 Central. It's fine to close this request for editor which is going nowhere. -SusanLesch (talk) 09:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just give it a little time and reapply, everything has been good faith - just need good faith and a fair understanding of the project quirks. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot to you, Brianmc, and Calebrw for your help. With luck I will try to edit an article on time someday. See ya. -SusanLesch (talk) 10:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can always use help bringing these articles up to scratch. These have not yet been published, so any work done is usually a good thing. Calebrw (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  • Oppose Not shown an understanding of the use of the {{source}} template and policies concerning adding information post-publication. I would be willing to change this if this user contributes more and with a better understanding. See above comment. Calebrw (talk) 06:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Calebrw. It took me under a half hour to adjust. This was my first encounter with flagged revisions and Wikinews citation style. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, your article said, "Pawlenty has said he will shortly sign the formal document" in the second paragraph. I corrected that to add the formal document itself, signed the same day, meanwhile answering you on my talk page. I am sorry to have to deal with this oppose. What is the point? -SusanLesch (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "What is the the point?"? The point of what? My vote, my concern with your apparent lack of knowledge of the WN policies? Calebrw (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dottydotdot, hope you don't mind a comment: that's a great name you have. Years ago I signed my artwork like this "...". -SusanLesch (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He he, wink Thanks!    Dotty••   10:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



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



Shunpiker (talk · contribs)

edit

Result: Editor status granted by user:Tempodivalse

I'd like to request Reviewer permission in order to help with the backlog of articles needing review. My motives are not entirely altruistic: I figure that if I review other folks' articles, my articles stand a better chance of getting reviewed. ;) I am also active at wikipedia and the Spanish language wikinews. Thanks for your consideration, -- Shunpiker (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Just to note, though, that the "reviewer" user group is largely deprecated, and not used anymore. What we use nowadays is "editor" status, which basically gives you the technical ability to put articles on the front page. In any case, I support. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! Thanks for the clarification! -- Shunpiker (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



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



The New Mikemoral (talk · contribs)

edit

Result: User promoted by Tempodivalse

Okay, so once again, I am requesting Editor status. I have the gist of how things work around here. Of course, I am still learning, and will take into better consideration the style guide. The main reason for my request for Editor status is I think is is silly having to wait for a Reviewer to give the okay for a mere wikilink. I have written two articles (1 and 2). Best regards, The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 03:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


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



Pi zero (talk · contribs)

edit

Result: Succesful, congratulations. Closed early as consensus is clear Tempodivalse [talk] 18:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do a fair number of copyedits here, mostly, of late, small ones in recently published articles; currently these edits must be individually sighted by others. I believe I've been here long enough not to transgress through ignorance. I have had editor status on English Wikibooks for some time (through autopromotion there), so I'm familiar with FlaggedRevs editorship generally. --Pi zero (talk) 13:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


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



hmwith (talk · contribs)

edit
Result
User promoted

I have written a few articles, and I would like have the Editor user right here. I am an admin on the English Wikipedia and an OTRS volunteer. My experience with multiple Wikimedia projects shows that I am trustworthy, and I am familiar with the practices here at English Wikinews. I'd love to help out the most that I can. Thanks, hmwithτ 16:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, my apologies for that mistake, I'm not in the habit of using singluar "they". :-) No offence taken, I hope? Tempodivalse [talk] 00:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, of course not. I just wanted the record to be straight. hmwithτ 16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



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



Jayron32 (talk · contribs)

edit
Closed as successful, congrats. Tempodivalse [talk] 22
30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I've written seven articles in the past few weeks, and copyedited another. I am also an experienced Wikipedia user and admin, and I would like to have Editor user right here. I think my performance at Wikipedia shows that I am trustworthy and use good judgement, and I have become accustomed fairly quickly to the Wikinews standards as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



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



XalD (talk · contribs)

edit

User promoted, congrats. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I often add interwiki links, do editprotected requests and make some corrections in a few articles. I am familiarized with "editor" buttons becouse I have flag in Spanish Wikinews. Thanks, ×α£đ~es 02:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



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



Result: User status granted by Jcart1534

Juliancolton (talk · contribs)

edit

I've written a few articles here, and I'm familiar with the basics. If it helps, I'm a sysop at enwiki, simplewiki, simplewikiquote, and commons, so I'm pretty trustworthy. :) –Juliancolton | Talk 03:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



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



Dottydotdot (talk · contribs)

edit
Closed as PASS by user:Tempodivalse

I know I only joined a few days ago but hopefully my contribs speak for themselves. It would be useful to approve some articles that are a bit slow to be approved. Cheers! Dottydotdot (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep don't worry I do! Dottydotdot (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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



Result: User status granted by user:Tempodivalse

William Saturn (talk · contribs)

edit

I'd like to be an editor so that I can better contribute to wikinews. I wrote the "Fear and loathing" series on the 2008 presidential election from May to October, and wrote other articles as well. I am active at wikipedia and commons as well as wikinews. Thank you.--William Saturn (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



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



Uncle G (talk · contribs)

edit

Long-time editor who seems to have returned. Regularly making copyedit changes which need sighted and for this at least I recommend granting the priv. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

granted

edit

Done Uncle G now has sighting privileges. Grandfather clause if for no other reason. --SVTCobra 01:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



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



Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs)

edit

Closed as unsuccessful. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here for about 2 weeks. In that time, I have pushed a few articles towards being published, and wrote one of my own, which was also published (Brush fire threatens Molokai, Hawaii). I understand all the relevant policies that go along with Editor status. I also contribute to en.wp, and have rollback status there. Drew R. Smith (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Comment The article version I linked to below as reason for my oppose vote was partly concerned with the near word for word copyvio issue, but there were other concerns. There wasn't even a {{date}} template on it, and I suspect had that and {{develop}} been present it would have been possible to develop it further.
On copyright, and taking snippets of how someone else has written a story, I would refer people to the issues experienced with Florentino Floro (talk · contribs) - not to compare this case with that, I believe the user can become familiar enough with policies and principles, but to highlight an idea that we can't go for a "changed enough for most people not to consider it plagiarism" principle. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, you seem to have purposefully linked to a version without the {{develop}} tag. You can see on the history that there were several revisions after the diff you linked, and before you first edited the article.
As for copyright, I did try to avoid copyright issues. When the IP added a copyvio tag to the article I asked iDangerMouse offwiki to take a look. iDM agreed it was probably ok, so I removed the copyvio tag. When you re-added it, I left it, and asked Dendodge to take a look.
What I don't understand, is why such a sketchy copyvio needs to be brought up here. Yes, it needs to be brought up, but why here? Its obviously not intentional copyright violation. All it is is a bad choice of topic. The source wasn't long enough to make the article different enough. I won't do short articles anymore, simple solution. Drew R. Smith (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  • Comment - I honestly don't see how that is "nearly word for word". I'll keep it on the talk page of the article, but I think people should read the relevant info, instead of just taking Brians word for it. No offense intended to you Brian. Drew R. Smith (talk) 10:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I trust Brian's judgement, I must point out that it is hard to effectively reword something when all the information available is in two sentences. I admit that it could be reworded well enough to avoid copyvio concerns, but I don't think it's worth opposing over. If he had copied a news article that was longer, I admit that it would be a major concern, but it wasn't exactly "word for word", and—as I have said—the original article contained only minimal "bare bones" information. Dendodge T\C(en.wp) 11:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Editorship here requires more than intention to work for the good of the project, it requires understanding of what isn't appropriate, because an editor needs to know what should not be passed through to publication. From Brian McNeil's example above, and also from Drew R. Smith's reaction to it, it seems that Drew R. Smith is not yet seasoned enough here. Given some time, I sincerely hope to see that change. --Pi zero (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not concerned very much about copyvio issues - the paraphrasing was slight at best, and sometimes it is difficult to use different wording than your sources, especially with a story as short as that. However, I'm a bit worried about your knowledge of the style guide. For instance, this article, which you created, had several problems with it - it was missing links, {{source}}, {{date}} template, and other issues. It's not a major issue, but it suggests that you don't know the standards that published articles should have - which is especially important when one has the ability to publish pages. I don't have high standards for editorship, though - if you were to write three or so good articles to show us that you're fully familiar with WN:SG, then I'll be glad to support. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're off to a good start, and I appreciate the work you've done so far, but I must Oppose for now per Tempodivalse. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I don't want to flat out oppose because I think this user has potential, but that being said, they have less than 50 edits and has been around all of a week. I'd like more experience/understanding of our ways/policies first. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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



Dendodge (talk · contribs)

edit

Result: Success is yours! Hope Brian doesn't mind me doing this when he said he would ;) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC) I have been here for a while now, writing articles every now and then, but mainly reading through policy pages and discussions. I am now confident that I understand all relevant Wikinews policies, having written 4 5 articles for this project, and helped others to correctly and effectively format their articles (through off-site media, such as Skype). I have also contributed to the English Wikipedia for nearly 3 years, and have had rollback status there for a long time (I can't rememebr exactly how long). I notice that articles sometimes take a bit longer than should be expected to get reviewed, and would like to help out with the process. Dendodge T\C(en.wp) 13:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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



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



RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)

edit

Closed as success, congrats. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly twelve months since my last request. I'm on wikinews alot and tend to see articles needing review go without for long periods of time. I'd review them myself but no editor status no review. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just that you've been here for long enough of a time (by far), I assumed you had editor privs. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editor rights were denied back then (Sept 08) --RockerballAustralia (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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



Poe Joe (talk · contribs)

edit

Promoted Tempodivalse [talk] 12:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe has been doing plenty of minor edits tarting up our articles and generally making things look better. It's high time he didn't have to wait to see his canges sighted. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

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


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



The wub (talk · contribs)

edit

Promoted Tempodivalse [talk] 12:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wub has been around a bit, and has shown competence with a recent comeback. Although much has changed in recent times, I'm sure this user can be trusted - very active and trusted contributor to en.wp. Again, assuming the nom is accepted, I see no problems - it is easy come, easy go after all. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

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


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



Closed as unsuccessful, not enough support for promotion. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rayboy8 (talk · contribs)

edit

This user has done plenty of writing and sure knows his way round the project already. Assuming he accepts my nom, this should breeze through. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

edit

I do agree to the proposed nomination. I do have one querie though. Do I get the ability to modify the lead stories on the front page? --Rayboy8 (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yo do. You always could, but now you won't need to wait for someone to approve it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I don't expect this user to misuse the tools in any way, knowingly or not. Dendodge T\C(en.wp) 14:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Switched to oppose, see further down[reply]
  • Support -Some very good articles-keep it up Rayboy!    Tris   17:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Tempodivalse [talk] 17:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This user has not gotten a firm grasp of what COPYRIGHT means. At least 3 articles of his writing now have been kicked back from review due to copyvio issues, or flat out marked for {{copyvio}}. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It has been noted that I have had three occassions where I have been caught violating copyright with articles that I have written. I am really sorry for all this and I will try my best to prevent this from happening again. --Rayboy8 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (from support) - I did not notice the copyvio problem when I supported before. Now that it has come to my attention, I find it to be a major issue. We cannot have editors who fail to understand copyright - publishing a copyvio is a surefire way to get us kicked off Google News. Sorry! Dendodge T\C (en.wp) 18:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, changed from a support - Dendodge and SGN bring up good points and i wasn't aware of the copyvio issues. While I appreciate the great work you've been doing writing articles, understanding copyright is a must for an editor - we can't have copyvios being published, it could get us removed from google's news listing and damage our reputation. However, I'll be happy to support if you can write several articles without the copyright issues. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per copyvoi concerns. Sorry. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Copyright is extremely important for Wikinews, and it should be noted that we are a little more tolerant than Wikipedia. Tolerant that is, in that substantial infringement is blanked and the contributor given a chance to start over without their article utterly vanishing. The issue is prominent in and around citizen journalism, and if you've been following this there have been a variety of threats for, say, copying the lede from an AP wire report. Writing on Wikinews should never be an attempt to be "just different enough to not be infringing", it should be original writing - your presentation of the facts gleaned from elsewhere, in accordance with project policies like WN:NPOV. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:19, 22 September 2009 (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.


Requests for removal of access

edit


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



Shyam (talk · contribs)

edit
User requested to lose Editor status voluntarily Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sighted and published 2009 Shri Shyam Bhajan Amritvarsha Hyderabad with claim of original reporting, no OR notes on talk page, and no review. Blatant violation/disregard for review policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Seriously, I didn't know that. Can't we review self-published work? Can you please direct me the link for criteria reviewing the work? Shyam (T/C) 10:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is WN:REVIEW, as the comment at the top says - everything must have an independent review. The article would have failed review because the WN:OR policy was also not adhered to - notes must be reproduced on the article's talk page. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  •   Remove for serious misuse - this is not an accident. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Remove I was shocked a minute or two ago when I turned up and found a clearly nonstandard title on the Main Page. Google News would not be amused and nor am I. Even if you really didn't know, that is still a reason why you should not have editor status. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 10:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think, that's enough reason to remove the editor status, please go ahead. When I started taking participation, there were no such restrictions. I am coming after long time creating an article, so policies might have changed drastically. If the story is not entertaining to google and you, that doesn't mean it's completely nonsense. If that's true change the content of essay - Wikinews:Wikinews needs you!. Please let me know, if you have any questions. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 11:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, sorry, I didn't mean that by 'not amused'. I would like to see the story published, it just wasn't suitable in that form - not amused is a euphemism usually used after an accident or mistake, amongst other things. If you stay around a while and get used to policy as it now stands, you may even earn the tool back... But for now, yes, I feel people should not keep it unless they know the policy sorounding it. I hope the article can be fixed up and used. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, please go ahead and remove me for a while. I voluntarily want to lose the tool, as I violate the code. I don't want the tool if there are enough reviewers. I applied for it because, my edition took very long to get reviewed by editor group. Sometimes if you think, there are less reviewers, you can approach me for giving me the access. Thanks, Shyam (T/C) 12:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Flagged_revisions/Requests_for_permissions/Archive_2&oldid=4630513"