User talk:Ragettho

-- 14:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

 — fetch · comms  19:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the kind words about my edits reviewing articles on Wikinews. Most appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. In addition to having occasionally contributed anonymously to Wikipedia and Wikinews, I'm also an editor for a blog that has a similar review process. Therefore I'm fully aware of how much work you had to put in just to clear the queue of pending articles that accumulated over the past few days. I'm also one who realizes that his work isn't necessarily as superb as he would like to think, so I always welcome the feedback. =P Ragettho (talk) 06:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I usually take my time to read them over, especially the older ones, over a day or so, and then review them all in one bunch. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

re
--Gryllida 04:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Question
Do you mind if I make some little changes to the article? I think it needs to convey that the evidence of lewd internet conduct came out in continuing disclosures of messages and photos over a few weeks, which he at first denied and then admitted to in drips and drabs as the evidence became clearer.

It has been noted elsewhere if he had just admitted his behavior in the beginning, that he might have been able to retain his seat. But he had clearly lied and equivocated from day one.

It seems that the porn star was just the last straw, and that the result would be the same, even if she had not stepped forth.

Also, I read in one source (not sure if it is listed in the article) that his wife of one year is very close to the Clintons and that they are furious with Weiner.

I doubt the marriage will last! Any bets? Mattisse (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, we have enough material for an in-depth article. Would you like to collaborate on the expansion? The article is unlikely to be reviewed in time for the 2 pm ET press conference anyway, so we'll have a lot of revisions to make within the next hour. So, I think we should pull the article (again), put in the edits you suggested, and elaborate more on the successive release of photos and the Clinton connection. We should not speculate too much on the marriage, though, since the press hasn't seemed to cover that too much. What do you think? Ragettho (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my computer crashed before I could answer you on my talk page. The article states that the lewd photo was accidentally posted on twitter. Is that a fact, or is that just what he said? (Got to rush off to hear the news conference.) Mattisse (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. Per the comment below, I've listed the article for review, and we can add updates later on. Ragettho (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought
Kind of deep thought, imho, about trade-offs in trying to maximize the effectiveness of the Wikinews system. I was reminded of this by noticing you'd recently twice(?) pulled an article off the review queue to update it &mdash; but I don't mean to imply anything about that specifically. It's just that it reminded of this conundrum, and I thought I'd offer it to you so you could think about it too.

Back when the anti-Mubarak protests were going on in Egypt, we had an article waiting for review about them whose author kept pulling the article to update it. This was one of those times when the active reviewers were short on the large time needed for a full review (it is a massive job, after all), and each version of the article would sit around for about twelve hours and then get pulled before it could be reviewed. I myself had the experience, once during that time, of finally scraping together enough time for a review, spending a large part of that hard-won time, and having the article pulled out from under me. We ended up with no coverage of most of the unfolding events, one article about some events toward the end of the sequence, and a long gap (I think it was almost three days) when we didn't publish a single article about anything. The article-pulling that was obviously intended to cause us to publish very up-to-date information, instead only had the effect of preventing us from publishing all the versions that got pulled.

I've often wondered if we could have done better. If we could have, it would have been by (1) starting a new article instead of pulling an old one, and (2) writing each article so that it would remain a valid account of earlier events even if it didn't get published until after some later events had unfolded. --Pi zero (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice! If you're a US resident, then you might be aware that Weiner is supposed to hold a press conference any minute now. Would you recommend that I just submit the article for review immediately after the conference? We can add any updates to a new article. Ragettho (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Submitting right after the conference certainly sounds reasonable. You're immersed in the article, I'm not, of course; whether this technique can work here is something you'd know better than I.  But there may well be a distinction between the sort of updates that can just be added to the article, and the sort that would call for a separate article.


 * Of course, there's also the danger that somebody will tag an article as "should be merged with such-and-such". (Sometimes you just can't win. :-)   I try to be helpful, but I surely don't have all the answers either.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * He did resign several minutes after 2 p.m. His wife was not beside him. His speech last 4 minutes according to CNN. He did not take questions. Can only find a blog so far that documents his speech.. He apologized to his family (his father and mother for bringing him up with such good values!), his wife, his constituents, but not to the country, which CNN pointed out was where the damage was the worst, as representatives speaking in local areas feared giving press conferences about important things like jobs, etc., worried that questions about Weiner would be raised.  Mattisse (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Mattisse (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Time-sensitive phrasing for leads
Thanks for your message, but don't feel too bad - you're in good company making that mistake. Chasing down that error is one of the few things I do these days on WN, as a look at my contributions will prove! Best wishes, and happy editing. Bencherlite (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer?
Would you be up for becoming a reviewer? I'd be willing to support you. You seem to grasp the way the site works and you write well. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? I'm flattered. And I accept. :) Ragettho (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I nommed you at WN:FR/RFP. Good luck. :) Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer Promotion
I have promoted you to the Reviewer class, entrusting you with the ability to mark revisions of articles as sighted (review). Please take a moment to read: You are welcome to use User Wikinews reviewer.
 * Flagged revisions
 * Reviewing articles
 * Peer review
 * Review
 * Reviewed article version
 * Flagged Revisions extension information, on MediaWiki

If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask for help on my talk page, and thank you for contributing to Wikinews!

Tyrol5 (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I recommend also WN:Tips on reviewing articles (shameless plug :-). --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yay! Thank you :) Ragettho (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Water cooler/proposals thread
--Pi zero (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence article about Dominic.
Hi there. I just realized that I was quoted in this article. You brought my quote about digital rights and sales of Ansel Adams images by institutions out of context. It comes off 1) out of context to my blog which is imperative to the quotation being understood 2) that I am making a blanket statement about organizational policy as a whole regarding image use at institutions 3) that I am representing Archives of American Art, when I was making this statement as an individual outside of the organization. This is causing quite an issue for my residency position and I have had to do lengthy explaining to a number of GLAMs (including my own organization and the Smithsonian as a whole) about my quotation being taken out of context. It would be ideal if my quotation could be removed or strictly placed into the context as stated on my blog regarding the marketability of Ansel Adams. I'd prefer the removal. Thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is now largely resolved by taking a more representative quote and putting it in an appropriate context. I'm not sure what you wanted to say with the quote you selected; we shouldn't be making Wikimedians in Residence uncomfortable, or politicising the relationship with GLAM orgs. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering, why did you think it wasn't working? In case the difficulty was with what it's supposed to do &mdash;    does three things. It guarantees that the link will always go to Wikipedia, even if a page were created on Wikinews with the target name. It adds the page to hidden Category:Pages with forced foreign links. And if you've selected the User interface gadget "Underline in green catorizable w links", it causes the forced link to be shown with a dashed underline. (I love that gadget; it makes the deep infrastructural purposes of w much easier to pursue.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I had a general idea of what foreign=force did. But on the article itself (not the edit box), I kept seeing . Did you not see this after you submitted your edit? Ragettho (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's disturbing.
 * Do you still see this problem when you look at the ?
 * Do you see it when you look at either of the two  wikilinks that are still in the article?  (The easy one to find is in the caption of the first picture.)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I still see that problem in the preceding revision. And yes, I still see it in the two remaining instances. (I actually missed those!) I'm not sure what to do with those, since I'm assuming that you're not experiencing this problem. Ragettho (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's a pdf file you can take a look at Ragettho (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's extremely helpful, as it makes it very clear just what symptoms you're seeing. Also,
 * Good grief, what a mess.
 * I can tell some things about your set up, giving me a better idea what to scrutinize when re-dissecting the template code. I'm still not sure what I'm looking for, but then, considering how many hours I spent desk-checking and testing that code before deployment, it's kind of a given that if it was something I'd naturually think of, it wouldn't be there.  (Hopefully, it is there; I'd far rather have made a stupid mistake in the code than have the problem be something much harder to track down.)  --Pi zero (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. (Hurray!  I'd done something incredibly stupid!)  --Pi zero (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's great! :) Now why did I experience these problems, and not you? Ragettho (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When linking to Wikipedia, w acts like w:Template:Sec link auto, linking to the secure server iff used from the secure server. The bug was in code that only runs on the insecure server.  --Pi zero (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * oh ok... thanks for the clarification! I'm glad that there weren't any issues on my end. 04:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for publishing Hidden treasure worth billions of dollars discovered in Indian temple. It's very much appreciated. Mattisse (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's an interesting article! Ragettho (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've told you about this before
Please don't do it again. Bencherlite (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, today is Tuesday, not Wednesday. Wednesday is tomorrow. Sunday was two days ago. In any case, the two day gap is clearly unacceptable. I'm pretty sure I tried revising the text to shorten the lead and remove the time-sensitive phrasing at that time, but obviously not all of my edits went through. I'll look into the matter further... I think I still need to figure out how the "Make lead" tool works, since it has a lot of buttons that I simply haven't figured out completely yet. Ragettho (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we work by UTC around here (check the timestamp in my message if nothing else), so I was right and you're wrong about the day of the week on Wikinews, whatever day it is/was for you personally wherever you happen to live. Not that this is any excuse, as you go on to accept.  And this confusion, by the way, is another reason not to use "today", "yesterday" or similar words on the front page.  As for sorting out "make lead", it offers a default setting of the first one or two sentences of the article which you can then edit before pressing the button marked "Save as lead [4]" .  It really is quite simple, and I'm surprised it's causing you so many problems.  In any case, if you're uncertain, check the main page after you've made the lead article and see if it looks the way that you expected.  If it doesn't, go to Lead article 1 (or 2, etc) and edit it directly.  Yours, Bencherlite (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to UTC, it's still Tuesday for the next two hours.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ragettho &mdash; If you scroll down the WN:ML page below even the sample of what the lead will (approximately) look like, in the lower left-hand corner there is an edit buffer that contains the proposed content for the selected lead template. The "make lead" button causes the sample display to be updated to reflect whatever edits you've made to that buffer.

I think I'd been using makelead for more than half a year before I noticed that edit buffer was there. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies for getting my days of the week confused even using UTC - I plead lack of sleep due to a very new baby in the house... I'm not even sure what month it is some days... Bencherlite (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Congrats on the new baby... I've heard it's a very exhausting yet rewarding experience. And get off the computer! I'm glad that you've found the time to contribute here, but Wikinews is hardly a place for relaxation. =P Ragettho (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Review 9/11 conspiracy theory goes to U.S. Court in Denver
Would review my article? :) Stapler80 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sex/sexuality category
You'd asked about creating such a category, what to call it, and whether it should be split between Health and Category:Culture and entertainment. --Pi zero (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The part of this that would go under Health seems tolerably straightforward, but not the part that would go under Culture and entertainment. It's a very different situation from Category:Royalty, where the inclusion criterion for the smaller category was essentially concrete, regardless of top-level category(-ies).
 * One solution would be to omit the Culture-and-entertainment part of it, and create a category strictly under Category:Health. Perhaps one could call it.
 * A conceivable alternative might be to draft a usage note (field of topic cat) articulating a clear straightforward inclusion criterion for the Culture-and-entertainment stuff. I don't see how to do it, but that's just me.  The field is there for this sort of thing.
 * Thanks for the message — I had almost forgotten about this! Maybe we could have an overarching category called "Sex", and use subcategories called "Sex crimes", "Sexual health", and "Sex in culture"? It's just an idea; I, too, am already having a hard time figuring out how the categorization would work. The problem is that a sex category could conceivably have articles that belong in most, if not all, of the top-level categories. (e.g. "sex education" fits in "education", "pornography" fits in "culture and entertainment", "prostitution" fits in "crime and law" and/or "economy and business", etc.) Ragettho (talk) 04:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Make lead
I gave the wrong instructions, a while back, when trying to help you with how to modify the text before submitting. For this, you don't want the "Make lead" button above the preview, because that wipes out any manual changes to the buffer in the lower left; rather, the "Refresh preview" button, below the preview on the right.

I was reminded of this recently when I got tangled up by it myself. --Pi zero (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll keep that in mind next time I use ML. Ragettho (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring text in US President Obama announces deal reached to avert government default
Thanks for doing that. I didn't realize you had, so I added more from a more accessible source. These now need reviewing. Perhaps you could turn down those reviews of mine, as they are unnecessary now. Sorry for being so negligent and not reviewing "Recent changes" more carefully. Respectfully, Mattisse (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I also would like to thank you for this; the 24-hour horizon was looming, and the more eyes the better. (Having finally figured out why I wasn't finding it in the source, I went to restore it myself, only to be pleasantly surprised to find I didn't have to.)  --Pi zero (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Ragettho (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Phone hacking scandal prompts media review in Australia
Apologies if I stepped on your toes with that review. --Pi zero (talk) 00:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up on the older sources... but you should have just left a note on the talk page. I wouldn't have been able to submit a review without reading talk page posts anyway. Ragettho (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, of course. I realized that... just after submitting.  And felt bad.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Exposed ip
Would you like your exposed ip on the water cooler hidden, as a matter of privacy? --Pi zero (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please. :) Ragettho (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Are there any archived discussions that you would recommend me reading? I should probably inform myself on the matter before I discuss further. Ragettho (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * IP hidden. :-)


 * Truthfully, I'm reluctant to point you at archives. Some of the most harrowing arguments to threaten to shake the whole project apart in the past two years have been between the review/non-review factions (I'm resisting my instinct to use a pejorative rather than "non-review", of course).  On one hand, I know from my own reading of very old Wikinews archives, trying to understand some of the long-ago times, that often you really can't feasibly recreate what was going on from the wiki record (partly because the time sequence is opaque).  And on another hand, sometimes the best way to deal with the past is to let it fall behind us, and look forward instead (in other words, let past conflicts stay buried).  --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Freshness nuance
I wasn't sure, from a comment you wrote recently, that this point came through clearly, so I thought I'd just note it here; this is a pet peeve of... someone's, I'm forgetting whose atm. The baseline freshness criteria are that the news event is within seven days and new information has come to light within 2–3 days. That's not about the dates on the sources; it's entirely possible for a source to contain only information that had already been available for some time. So most often the news event itself should have occurred within 2–3 days. I tried to articulate this when drafting WN:Article wizard/Freshness. --Pi zero (alt acct) (alt talk) 14:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. The article wizard was very helpful in explaining the freshness criteria, too. Ragettho (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
A barnstar for your review work. It's a pretty ordinary barnstar, I'm afraid (not showing much imagination on my part), but I think well earned. --Pi zero (alt acct) (alt talk) 14:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay! Thanks! Ragettho (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

TB

 * User_talk:Wifione. BestWifione (talk) 10:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Libya rebel article
Would you please quote the particular paragraphs without the sources please? Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I totally understand why this failed. Reuters had updated their page and most of the information disappeared. I have changed the ref and that should do the trick, but, the page needs to be reviewed fast or, who knows, maybe the info will disappear from this ref too! Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for resolving this quickly. This story is a very important part of our news coverage. Ragettho (talk) 15:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review
Just wanted to say thanks for your review of my article! I'll take your comments into consideration, if I'm lucky enough to fell such an earthquake again. Mediator Scientiae (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for all your work at Magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia felt up and down U.S. east coast, Pentagon evacuated. It was my first Wikinews article, and it was fun! The differences between Wikinews and Wikipedia are enough to make it challenging, for sure. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture select
In my primary web browser (Firefox 6), the gallery pictures appear without captions (which also means without credits, of course). So I decided to try the other browser readily available to me, which is some-version-or-other of IE &mdash; and in that, the gallery doesn't appear at all.

Is it working for you (I'm guessing yes), and what browser are you using? --Pi zero (talk) 22:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The captions don't show up for me either. I pulled the template from a now-archived article, so I thought that it was alright to not show captions in the gallery. :/ I'll see if I can find a way to get these captions to show up. Ragettho (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All fixed! This time I used an article written by Diego Grez as an example. Ragettho (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol. When you fixed it, I was consulting a Diego Grez article as an example. :-)  Cargo cult programming.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI, next time you need to check on layout / appearance for other browsers you might want to take browsershots.org for a spin. --Jeremyb (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. --Pi zero (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Review?
Hi, i was just wondering if its at all possible for you to review my article, Call for inquiry into Murdoch pay-offs - {jessicalynnoraUOW}
 * I can't guarantee it, but I'll try my best. Sorry :( Ragettho (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Magnitude 5.8 earthquake in Virginia felt up and down U.S. east coast, Pentagon evacuated
There were some irregularities, after all (I've not forgotten, you were concerned enough to query me about an independent review). Your comment requested at Talk:...#Some concerns. --Pi zero (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Apple
Is there a specific reason that the article does not appear in the template? Ryan Vesey  Review me!  06:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps caching lag; it's there now. (Congrats on the article, btw. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 06:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, my home wiki is still Wikipedia. I have 3 GA's waiting and 2 wikiprojects to help run, but I will be swinging by from time to time.  Usually when I can beat someone to a good piece of news.  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  06:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

DC-10 brief
Thanks for the review.....and I'm well aware of its brevity. I'm making a half-baked effort to sort of revive Briefs.....(which I might be better at doing if I understood what they were/why they existed more!) :]   ....along those lines, what do you think about Briefs.......I'm confused about the difference between Briefs and Shorts....and guidance would be greatly appreciated. Bddpaux (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've only been here since May, so I wouldn't know whether briefs have existed before. Briefs are merely short summaries of larger stories, so I don't see why we need to publish them if we can write the full articles instead. But if you have a compelling reason to start writing briefs instead of complete articles, then I might support you. According to current policy, all articles published are still required to meet the minimum three-paragraph requirement. Breaking news may be published with less content, but it is expected that the article will be expanded to at least three paragraphs when more developments in the story arise. Shorts are collections of at least three news stories, and each story might have one or two short paragraphs. Ragettho (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikis and class research
Hey there! I haven't forgotten about you, but I have been away from the net for a few days. I've now replied to your questions on my talk, sorry about the delay. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

??
You still around?? --Bddpaux (talk)

Request for reviewing and other assistance
Hi. Next week is the start of the and two Wikinewies will be attending to cover the para-alpine skiing ahead of the 2014 Winter Paralympics. This is part of an effort outlined at IPC Alpine Ski World Championships. Immediately following this event, there will be a Meetup in Barcelona where Wikinews, the Paralympics and efforts to similar sport coverage will be discussed. At the moment, there are only two active reviewers on a daily basis. Demonstrating an ability to get reviews for these types of events done quickly is important for Wikinews credibility and gaining access to these types of events. I would really appreciate it if you could sign up on the IPC World Championship page to review, promote articles published during this period, assist in translating these articles into another language or attend the meetup in Barcelona. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 09:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?
We've created the Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. Unlike the previous version, points are available for people who conduct reviews. (With a University of Wollongong class currently contributing articles, extra assistance is appreciated at this time.) It presents a great incentive for you to renew your reviewing chops, contribute some original reporting not being done by the main stream media, and write some synthesis articles on topics that could use more attention. People should be around to review to prevent a backlog if you just want to write, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Somehow, along the way, we missed this!!
--Bddpaux (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Inactive Policy
Per the proposed inactive policy, yopur account has been nominated to have its privileges reduced. --

Privileges
'''Note! Your privileges on English Wikinews have been reduced.'''
 * Under the Privilege expiry policy (enacted October 13, 2012) the rights held by your user account have been reduced due to inactivity, or lack of privilege use.


 * Point 4 of the Privilege expiry policy provides for fast-tracking reacquisition of privileges. We all understand that real-life commitments can severely curtail the level of commitment you can give to Wikinews; the privilege reduction is in no way intended as a reflection on your past work, or to imply you are unwelcome. The aim in curtailing privileges is to address security risks, and concern that a long period of inactivity means you may not be up-to-date with current policy and practices.


 * Per this version of WN:RfP, you may review the public announcement of this change. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)