Wikinews

Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 4

< 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.



Figurehead (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

edit

This user is an alternate account that I'll use while editing on public computers. Not a sockpuppet or an imposter. Would one of you mind going in and giving it editor status? I'd do it myself, but I don't want it to be seen as a CoI. :) --Thunderhead 15:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Votes

edit
Here you go, how's this? :) --Thunderhead (talk) - (alt. account) 23:47, 8 April 2010 (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.



Closed as no consensus. Many neutrals and a few opposes and only one support. You can always try again later. --Mikemoral♪♫ 03:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MisterWiki (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

edit

I have made many articles recently. If I have enough time to review articles, I'll do. I'm recurrently visiting the IRC channel (you've got my bot too here, Pitsilemu!). What more can I say? Ah. Support guys! :-D --MisterWiki (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Comment Misterwiki is a good guy, but as it has been mentioned their is a small language gap when it comes to grammar, is their any sort of probation he could be put on for while to make sure he checks for proper grammar? Irunongames•play 20:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I too am concerned about the language gap; not concerned at all about his other blocks, however. Is there a way we could allow non-native English speakers to earn editor status? If we don't accomodate these editors, then we're going to end up with an editing staff that has little to no diversity. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how that's going to work. Reviewers need to have a very solid, if not native, grasp of English in order to make sure all articles are up to the highest levels of English. I don't think we have much of a "diversity" problem either, I can think of several editors that do not come from anglophone backgrounds. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  • Weak support Don't see why not. But just for the record, he has been blocked indefinitely on Commons, Wikipedia and Spanish Wikipedia. Global contribs So be good :) --Adi4094 (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (leaning towards support. very possibly going to change my mind and support before this vote ends) I'm aware of his blocks, and i don't think they are really relevant to wikinews. My major concern is that editors generally review articles. Part of the review process is copyediting, and I'm not sure his english is up to that. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak neutral I couldn't care less about the blocks on other projects, as MisterWiki has shown he's very responsible and reliable here, and I certainly trust him not to abuse this tool. However, I agree with Bawolff in that reviewers should have a very solid, if not native-ability, grasp of English, in order to properly copyedit poorly-written articles and detect when a story isn't written up to our standards. MisterWiki's English is good, no doubt, but I'm not sure it's quite up to that level. Like Bawolff, might change my mind ... Tempodivalse [talk] 14:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I trust this user not to abuse the tools. I don't view the blocks as a problem for our purposes either. However, your English is just not up to the high standard here. It's far better than I can do in a foreign language, and perfectly adequate to work here, but you need to be able to appreciate really subtle points within the English language to be able to sight edits. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Besides not having a fluent enough grasp of the English language, I also find it alarming that you have been blocked from other Wiki projects multiple times. Moreover, when I researched the reasons behind these blocks, it did not do anything to help your case (to put it lightly). PSD27 (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to help here as much as I can. To prove the other projects (where I'm blocked) that I'm not a bad guy. --MisterWiki (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning oppose. I certainly trust this user; his contributions have been generally good, but like PSD27, I certainly don't find your actions on other Foundation sites reassuring. English is also a problem, though less so. C628 (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Sorry, but I agree with Sandman. You are a great editor, but English is very important here. --Mikemoral♪♫ 21:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. User is proving himself; it is just the language issue. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning towards oppose. Whilst MisterWiki is a great contributor to the project I feel that his command of English is not yet of a sufficient standard to review. Sorry. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 05:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning to weak support. Your a great contributor to the project, I mean really great. Especially your work on the recent Chilean earthquake. But I don't think, as others have said, you have a good enough grasp on the English language to have editors responsibilities, yet. Also, you don't seem to fully understand the policies of Wikinews (as seen here). Not only that, but your blocks/bans on other projects make me want to see more positive contributions before you get any advanced privileges. But I think in a few months time, theses issues will be cleared up, and I'd be willing to support you fully. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 02:41, 23 March 2010 (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.



Rights granted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irunongames (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

edit

Well, I have realized that we can write as many articles as we want, but that means nothing if their not published, and that seems to take a while. Since I have no life, I see no problem giving 30 minutes or more a day to reviewing articles. Plus since I am a IRC lurker I know when their are new articles in the pool. Ask anything you want :) Irunongames•play 23:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Votes

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


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



Successful. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C628 (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

edit

At the suggestion of Tempodivalse a long time ago on my talk page, I'm sticking my neck out and submitting myself for editor status. Thanks in advance for comments, positive or negative. Cheers, C628 (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Votes

edit

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



Closed as successful. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:15, 15 March 2010 (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.


RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

edit

I've had my Wikibreak and think that I can do better reviewing articles. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Votes

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


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



Closed; rights granted Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tempodivalse (alternate) (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

edit

Well, since giving alternate accounts editor privileges seems to be all the rage nowadays, I thought I'd throw mine into the ring as well. I haven't really used this account in the past, and probably won't be very active with it in the future, but nice to have around if I want to access Wikinews from somewhere with a dubious-security internet connection. Both the user and user talk page point to user talk:Tempodivalse, and the signature is same as for main account. Risk of compromise is probably low enough to grant Editor status (don't think a vandal unfamiliar with wikinews would be able to figure out how to publish an article before getting noticed and blocked :-b ). Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 14:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Votes

edit
Rhetorical question, presumably. Other Place:Sock puppetry#Alternate account notification, #Legitimate uses of alternate accounts. --Pi zero (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2010 (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.



Rights granted; only one objection Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Don (talk · contribs – Edit rights)

edit

Guess who? 'Declared sock' for Brian McNeil; planned for use from work - where I do not wish to expose my password for 'crat and CheckUser privileges. I'll countersign this from my main account once I'm at home this evening.

Don't ask for full reviews from this account - I can get interrupted at any time. However, I should be able to sight and/or revert changes as appropriate. -- Scots Don /CONTACT! 13:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  • Comment Could you perhaps use the same signature for the alternate account as for the main account, so that people would better recognise who you really are? Linking might not be enough by itself, I dunno. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No idea why having an alternative account has suddenly become fashionable but if people wish to do so, could they at least come up with a username which is based upon their normal account to make life a little easier for everyone else. Tempodivalse's "Tempodivalse (alternate)", for example, is muchg more helpful than something completely new. Adambro (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to confirm, this is my account. If you're curious why I have an alternative account... Would you want to log into a Bureucrat & CheckUser account vai the plain, unencrypted connection via a proxy operated by your employer to track all internet traffic? I have adjusted the signature on my alternate account following feedback from BRS. Personally, I see absolutely no reason why my secondary account's name should bear any relationship to my primary account; it is declared, I have no intention of using it for voting, and I don't want to make it too easy for any malcontents to link the accounts without a modicum of research. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My suggestion regarding the naming is purely for the convenience for other users. It is probably reasonably safe to assume that in most cases alternative accounts won't be used as much as main accounts so if the name appear in recent changes isn't familiar then it just adds a little extra work to figure out who it is. I don't understand why you'd want a completely different name for an alternate account. Adambro (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

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


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



Closed as having no consensus to promote, sorry. Try again in 2-3 weeks? Tempodivalse [talk] 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adi4094 (talk · contribs)

edit

I will start by saying that I'm new but I have got the hold of the policies. Many good articles often go unreviewed for a long time. Wikinews definitely needs more Editors and so here I am. I am not really keeping my hopes high and if I am rejected someone should explain me my mistakes and I will try to improve. --Adi4094 (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit

Votes

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.



Done –Juliancolton | Talk 02:29, 2 March 2010 (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 Scottish Mafia (talk · contribs)

edit

This is my account for use on public computers. I think the risk of compromise is low enough that granting it editor status is compatible with 'easy come, easy go' and I have no intent to get admin access for it, so it can't do much damage. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support — I'm willing to go with this. I never use my account on public computers due to the risk of it being compromised, but if others have a regular need to access wikinews from such computers, then a separate account that still allows them act in a fairly normal fashion is probably a good idea. It's a lot easier to undo the damage caused by an editor account than it is to undo the damage caused by an admin account:P. Gopher65talk 13:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Current admin on this project, acknowledged alternate account for legitimate purposes. No worries, Cirt (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2010 (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.



No consensus. A firm, resounding 'Meh'. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stillwaterising (talk · contribs)

edit

On the recommendation of Blood Red Sandman I would like to request Editor access. I've been active on my english Wikipedia account since the fall of 2007 and started editing Wikinews today in response to the Austin Echelon plane incident. I have a record on Wikipedia of thorough research and active participation in policy debates. I promise to review the policies and procedures of Wikinews and follow them appropriately. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Despite the user being so new, he clearly grasps the basics already. Partly, this is based on me trusting the user not to sight things without checking policy first. Remember; editor is easy come, easy go, and I do believe this user is capable of using the tool sensibly. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 01:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis that Editor status is "easy come, easy go". Standards for receiving this tool have become too high recently, imo. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have encountered this user on en.wikipedia when he teamed up with a compatriot of his, User:Ash, in an attempt to keep a poorly sourced article on a biography of a living person in main-article space. More on this here [3]. The article was about a gay porn star Paul Carrigan. The user Stillwaterising seemed to voice an overriding concern of retaining poorly sourced material about a living person, and the page indeed even had material that was not sourced to anything at all. One quality that Wikinews definitely shares with Wikipedia is a concern for sourcing, to make sure we source our facts and get things right and factually accurate. I do not think that we should be so quick to promote an individual that has displayed a lack of regard for sourcing information about a living person on a controversial topic. I would also like to see more experience on Wikinews than one single article contributed, and one day of time elapsed. Cirt (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral to weak oppose. This is partly influenced by reading the discussion Cirt linked to above; I would be concerned if someone were using the wiki to 'collect dirt' or similar. WP:BLP does not apply here; we've flagged revisions - which prevents unreviewed publication. I would be inclined to say, "please demonstrate more familiarity with this project". --Brian McNeil / talk 20:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral but solely because I would like to see a little bit more time/experience on Wikinews. the wub "?!" 12:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see look at the revision history and edit statistics for w:2010 Austin plane crash. I'm a major contributor who is known for sourcing every line. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: First contribution to this project was an unsourced contribution - and it was only made ten days ago [4]. User has contributed to a whopping total of one article on this project [5]. Cirt (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever other concerns there are here, {{Broadcast report}} is not unsourced. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, yes, that template. I'm very, very reluctant to accept that from any new contributor unless I am also able to access the broadcast. I require people build a trust reputation before relying on it to any degree whatsoever. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:04, 1 March 2010 (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.



Closed as successful, no objections in several days. Congrats Tempodivalse [talk] 15:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PSD27 (talk · contribs)

edit

I have been a member of Wikinews for over three months with nearly 750 edits to my name. During which time, I have created and written 30+ published articles (many of which have been featured on the Main Page) in addition to having contributed to and edited many others. I feel I have a good understanding of policy. I furthermore feel that I possess a firm grip on how articles should be written having read both the Wikinews style guide and Strunk & White's guide very thoroughly. I am also confident in my overall ability to copy-edit. If given the opportunity, I would like to be of assistance with the reviewing process as well as fighting against vandalism. In turn, I could assist in keeping things moving efficiently and in a timely fashion by reducing the workload of other hardworking editors. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, PSD27 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2010 (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.



Closed as pass, almost complete support and no objections in over two days. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vyk (talk · contribs)

edit

I am nominating Vyk for editor permissions as he has been helping out with categorisation of articles and most notably interwikis with fr-Wikinews. Currently his contributions need to be sighted; whilst this is usually done quite rapidly, it would be useful if this were no longer necessary. He already has autoreviewer and editor rights on fr-Wikinews where he does his article writing. Whilst policies and practices on fr-Wikinews are not identical to here, the fact that he is a trusted user there hopefully will carry some weight. Obviously there will be concerns that with editor rights he will technically be able to review others' articles; however, I do not feel that he will abuse the privileges. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2010 (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.



Closed as pass, congrats. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cocoaguy (talk · contribs)

edit

I have been a user on en.wp for two years now, and I have become acquainted with en.wn. Although I have only been a user on en.wn for about a month, I have a significant amount of published articles. Also I have original reporting on the Times Square bomb scare including on scene pictures. Cocoaguy (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident with my ability to copyedit. I think that as a editor, reviewing articles, copyediting will come easily. Cocoaguy (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose you're right. Editing someone else's work is sometimes easier than editing your own. Good job on the Times Square incident OR, by the way. Benny the mascot (talk) 18:41, 31 December 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.



Sampi (talk · contribs)

edit

Hello, I'd like to request Editor access. I'm mostly active on my english Wikipedia account but on Wikinews I often fix small grammatical or formatting mistakes. I've yet to publish an article here but with Editor access this might change. As a Wikipedia editor, I'm familiar with the NPOV policy and I've read through Wikinews' style guide. Cheers --Sampi (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose; user only has four minor edits to mainspace. Please think about editing and publishing more articles -- feel free to ask again once some mainspace articles are under your belt :). Regards, — μ 12:45, Wednesday February 3 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Because an author cannot publish an article they wrote themself, the editor bit wouldn't be of any help to you in authoring an article that is then published. That is, someone else would have to peer-review your article and publish it, even if you did have the bit. --Pi zero (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—sorry, but I don't know whether we can trust you yet, due to your low number of mainspace edits. While our standards are quite low, we generally require a few published articles before granting the editor bit. Δενδοδγε τ\c 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Who? I've never seen this user edit at all, let alone build confidence they know "their" from "they're". --Brian McNeil / talk 16:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 5 main ns edits is not enough for editor. As a general rule, you should have at least written a couple articles, or made a significant number of wikignome contributations, to demonstrate that you know whats what. Well activity at another project does help establish that you at the very least know what this wiki-thing is all about, its not enough by itself. The very basic criteria for editor is I know who you are, and that I have no reason to doubt that you have good judgement in applying wikinews policy. Unfortunately i don't know who you are, so i can't support. Better luck next time. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Closed as unsuccessful. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:19, 3 February 2010 (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.



Closed as successful, will grant bit shortly. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microchip08 (talk · contribs)

edit

After a suggestion via IRC by Tempodivalse, I would like to nominate myself to receive the 'editor' flag. As you all know, it will allow me to peer review, and subsequently publish, articles. Hopefully, an additional editor will minimise the risk of articles becoming stale whilst on the review list.

I am an experienced editor on Wikimedia projects, a trusted editor on Simple English Wikipedia, and an administrator on the scheduled-for-closure Simple English Wikibooks. Although I have only been actively editing for a few days, I have an understanding of the various policies, such as the style guide. I have created several articles, a comprehensive list of articles published having been published on my talk page.

Thank you for your comments. Yours faithfully, — μ 16:14, Sunday January 31 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.



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.



Close as unsuccessful, user withdrew. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MisterWiki (talk · contribs)

edit

Hi, I just want to start with some news from Chile. Chile-related news are not recurrently posted here. --MisterWiki (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Are you actually asking to be given Editor status, with power to review and publish other people's stories? Or are you just asking for permission / community approval to write stories about Chile? If it's the former, I'd oppose as I don't think your command of English is sufficiently good to spot mistakes made by others. If it's the latter, you don't need permission to write stories about your preferred topics. Bencherlite (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Your enthusiasm is wonderful. However, you've only been here for a few hours, which isn't enough to show that you know your way around yet. In addition, submitting articles for review like this and this (when you presumably thought that they were in good condition and ready for the general public) indicates to me that your command of English isn't (yet) good for me to trust that you would do a good job reviewing an article that someone else wrote. Sorry, but keep going! Bencherlite (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Bencherlite sums up my thoughts perfectly. While I applaud your enthusiasm, i'm not sure i'm totally comfortable with you having the privileges just yet. If you can write three or so articles that are fully up to our WN:SG standards, i'll be happy to reconsider. But please, don't get discouraged by this, writing articles can be a challenging process and it's tricky to get everything right from the start. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose disruption on many wikis. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Your English simply isn't good enough; it has to be spot on to get the tool. Also, bear in mind our content control system means we are accepted by Google News so only trusted users get to it; while I have no issue with you editing here so long as you behave, it would take some time to convince the community to trust you that much owing to prior violations elsewhere. FULL DISCLAIMER: I can be viewed as having a bias but I believe my note on MW's talkpage here and the conversation in IRC last night demonstrates that we are getting along just fine together. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I resign. Maybe on some more time. --MisterWiki (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2010 (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.

Successful. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pmlineditor (talk · contribs)

edit

Hi, I'm Pmlineditor. I've created 8 articles (and hopefully more when this request ends) here and have significantly contributed to one. I think I have gained sufficient experience to review and publish articles here. If it matters, I'm a Simple Wikipedia, Simple Wiktionary and Meta-Wiki sysop. Thank you for your consideration. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:58, 25 January 2010 (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.

Successful. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bencherlite (talk · contribs)

edit

Self-nom. My user page lists the 7 articles I've had accepted so far here, with 2 pending for review (at the time of writing, 2 of the 5 lead stories are mine). Although I won't be able to keep up today's rate of news writing, I'd like to help out. Some of you may have met me at Wikipedia (sysop 2 years plus, 3 Featured Articles, which might indicate that I can right a propper sentance without two many mistaks...) although I know that the format's rather different here. Bencherlite (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (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.

For removal

edit


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



Closed as support, sorry Rockerball, but consensus seems pretty strong now. Maybe reapply in a month or so? Tempodivalse [talk] 22:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)

edit

I have lost all faith that this user is reviewing to a suitably high standard and not simply rubber-stamping that which, on the surface, seems okay. I will refrain from voting until they explain the latest, passing a story about a woman hit and killed by a truck, while doing her job assisting children across the road. It has one particularly telling post-review comment on the talk page, "what the hell is a crossing guard?"

--Brian McNeil / talk 09:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

edit
  •   Comment I've been wondering about the source checking on India test-fires 'Astra' missile. Prior to publication, I'd gone to the sources to check on the correct parsing of a list of planes that the missile would be compatible with, and couldn't find that list in any of the sources. Unmeritoriously of me, being in a hurry (as I usually am, that's why I don't often review here), I left the matter for whoever reviewed the article to sort out. That was RockerballAustralia, who made no edits or comments when reviewing it; but I was left with this uncomfortable doubt in the back of my mind. --Pi zero (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I'm not sure I understand Brians comment in it's entirety. Newspapers report this same basic story all the time (details tweaked of course). As for rubber stamping, I all ways check the first-review (if it exists), which in this case had the comment "What is a "lillipop [sic] lady"? Please make this article more accessible for non-(Scots?)" and sources for copyright vio and detail. As per Tempo (below), such instences are not frequent - if they are then I haven't heared about alot of them. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "lollipop lady" is a term which is, understandably, incomprehensible to most people outside the UK. However, "crossing guard" is equally off in terms of describing the function of this person, and the likely individual involved in the job. The "lollipop" moniker comes from the person escorting children across the road - usually at the school gates - having a 1.5-2m pole with a large circular reflective sign with "STOP CHILDREN" printed on it. I would guess that 80%+ of the people working this job are past retirement age and certainly not guards. I did not touch that particular article because I was baffled as to a term that would make sense globally.
I am concerned that RockerBall seems to regularly publish without any prior copyedit - most articles do need it and, yes, this was intended as a boot up the arse on the issue. Reviewing is, indeed, hard. However, we are generally managing to get our articles out with less grammatical and spelling errors than a number of major mainstream news sources (I usually see at least a half-dozen spelling and grammar errors on BBC News Online each week).
Now, the style guide is long and I have the advantage of spending a lot of time working on it as I did the initial mass-archiving project and defining the archiving procedure. With peer reviewing now I feel we could scale back the stringent rules for archiving, it is very rare for bad stuff to go unnoticed that long.
What I would suggest is that if you've had me being my grumpy bastard self about a style guide point, then the next article you write or review, open it in one window and the style guide in another and go through in-depth. You might also want to have a look at Amgine's favourite on style; this is a really good guide on improving your writing and getting passive voice usage out of our articles. I was 35+ before I saw it, and my writing has, I believe, improved from it. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I understood "crossing guard" immediately. "Lollipop lady" is a rather unusual and slangy term confined to the UK. I think using "crossing guard" for the headline was a reasonable choice, especially given that it had been failed for title previously so RockerBall was stuck between a rock and a hard place here. Both terms were in the article anyway with a wikipedia link so it's not like anyone would be confused on reading the article (although I'm disappointed in how light w:Crossing guard is on British aspects)
I definitely agree about Elements of Style though, that's a fantastic little book! the wub "?!" 20:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Crossing guard" is as bad as lollipop lady. I'd associate the former with a level crossing. I'm abstaining from this as I see both sides very clearly, but I felt obliged to point that out. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think crossing guard would be more appropriate (but i'm biased. In Canadian english [or at least in the common usage i encounter] lolipop lady would mean a lady who eats lolipops, or is a lolipop or something along those lines. It would never mean someone who helps children cross the road). Sure its better to use british terms in british articles, but thats assuming the word can be reasonably understood or geussed by other readers. I see no possible way someone who is not familiar with that term would get crossing guard out of it. Crossing guard is perhaps slightly better as it actually describes the person (One who guards people as they cross [the road]). I think Rockerball did the right thing in that article. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either are appropriate. Neither are of any use to a global audience. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have digressed somewhat, this discussion is probably more suited to the article's talk page. But since we seem to be flogging it here, I'll just say that "lollipop lady" is certainly not suitable for an international audience (at first I though it was someone who sells lollipops). "Crossing guard" isn't very descriptive either. "Road crossing guard" probably would have been the best way to phrase it. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Break
edit
  • I'm ashamed to admit it, but I've probably published articles without categories before (I do occasionally forget to check them)—I don't consider that a big deal (categories are important, but an article can survive without them). The mistake with the type of car, however, I find very hard to forgive. Even a very lax review should have picked that up. I'm going to wait for Rockerball to comment, but I am inclined towards supporting removal of his rights now. Dendodge T\C 16:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories will be significantly more important when GNSM goes live. They will be passed to Google News in the sitemap for them to appropriately categorise our articles and display to readers. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) Note, though, that the Hyundai/Honda mixup was an isolated incident (wasn't it?). Although a couple of articles Rockerball passed didn't have good style or formatting, I can't recall any instances, aside from this one, where it was factually incorrect. This seems like a one-off occurrence, perhaps RA was just having a bad day and missed it. As for the categories, that's a relatively minor issue compared to factual accuracy and neutrality, I myself frequently forget to check for them.
I'm all for second chances; I'd only support the de-editoring of someone if he was totally incompetent with the tool; i.e.: severe, obvious mistakes keep recurring frequently. That doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm still inclined to stay neutral. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You get one chance to get it totally correct. If you've reviewed and published without fixing mistakes and adding categories - including actually correcting the title where appropriate - then it will be under 15 minutes until Google News spiders the title and a synopsis. Google News never changes what it originally gets. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

edit
  •   Neutral/weak oppose I've seen some articles reviewed by Rockerball that were of rather dubious quality, style- and formatting-wise, and needed to undergo fairly significant copyediting. That makes me a bit uncomfortable. However, those instances are not frequent, and I think that overall, his reviewing quality is good (and he's one of our most prolific reviewers). Tempodivalse [talk] 14:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out the weak oppose in light of comments above, changed to a firm neutral. However, I don't think I'll support removal, i'm not convinced this is quite enough for a de-flaggin. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral: I don't think RA's rights should necessarily be revoked (would this be the second time, or am I thinking of someone else?), but I certainly agree that a stern warning is required. It is important that reviews are thorough and thoughtful, and it seems that RA's are not always so. In future, I may be less lenient. Dendodge T\C 15:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Switched to support, see below[reply]
  • Second time that I've had some one request that my Edtior privs be taken away. This is probably the (proverbial) kick in nuts I need though --RockerballAustralia (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you actually read the above section? This is not about the goddamned lollipop lady! That was just the latest in a long string of rubber-stamping articles with zero copyedit or other corrections prior to publishing. Go on, look; one example of publication with a factual error – within the list of articles in the list down the right of the main page. Articles are not categorised by reviewer; there is no easy way to assess the reviewing history of an editor. I brought this vote here because I have lost confidence that RockerballAustrailia is doing due diligence during the review process. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:36, 18 January 2010 (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_4&oldid=4630515"