User talk:216.237.232.178

PSD27 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. You got the vandalism warning as it looked like just random blanking of the field on the peer review template, as opposed to actual dispute of newsworthiness. The peer review template is considered someones comments on an article, and it is generally considered inappropriate to edit them. If you want to dispute the newsworthiness of something, please do so by adding a comment under that template about why you think it is not newsworthy. However current wikinews policy is that local news is newsworthy (on the idea that once we have a significant volume of articles, the main page will be filtered to have only the most news worthy articles). Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Don't worry about the vandalism warning, its clear that your intention was not malicious, so no harm done. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

p.p.s By the way, it should be noted that Wikinews and Wikipedia are related, but separate projects, with different rules/standards as well as different main pages. (Wikinews main page vs Wikipedia main page) Bawolff ☺☻ 02:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for all the info. 216.237.232.178 (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply

 * I do not necessarily disagree with you as it pertains to the newsworthiness of said article. I'd venture to say you may be right. However, while you could and should have constructively made your point in the form of a comment on the talk page, you instead chose to impulsively tamper with the reviewing template. It was at that point in which you crossed the line into vandalism. PSD27 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

--