Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/Archive 1


 * Hello All. I don't have a massive number of contributions here, though I have written two articles (with a long break between the first and the second), but I hope my copyedits speak for themselves. I am an administrator at en.wikipedia with about 32,000 edits, so you can rest fairly assured I'm not going to do anything untoward. Frankly, I'm getting tired of copyediting an article and having to wait for approval from third parties.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * --♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 21:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nn123645

 * Nn123645 (talk) I typically read wikinews without editing and would like the ability to sight revisions. I don't have much of an edit history at wikinews, but I do have one over at en.wiki Link corrected by Anonymous101talk at 21:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC). . --Nn123645 (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I currently this request as the user has not made any edits in a namespace that uses flagged revisions, and has only made four edits overall. Although I trust the user, I would like to see them edit a bit (in the main namespace in particular) first. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 22:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Similar to A101, I think this should only be given out to people who have shown that they know their way around the project. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is a trusted editor but needs some more edits over here. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll withdraw and apply again when I have more edits. --Nn123645 (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Requesting editor status. ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 20:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * good editor, a few hundred edits, mostly main namespace. Anonymous101talk 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems to have picked up the important details --Brian McNeil / talk 22:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Recommend speedy upgrade. I am tired of sighting Tempodivalse's always good edits. --SVTCobra 23:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Xavexgoem

 * Want to see if I can get into this early. Have contributed two articles so far about the recent Venezuelan polls, but that's about it. Admin and mediator over at enwiki. Or maybe this should be in the reviewer section? Xavexgoem (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * - If the use continues making great edits like he is for the next week I will happily support. However, I am not quite ready to support at this point. Anonymous101talk 16:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * - Positive contributor. Cirt (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * - steady worker; good judgment. Durova (talk) 03:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the above. Cary Bass (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

King of Hearts

 * I would like editor permissions to help me get changes made faster. I am an admin on the English Wikipedia, and I've made several contributions here on Wikinews recently. -- King of Hearts (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks fine. Unless anyone objects I'll grant you editor status Anonymous101talk 16:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with . Cirt (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks sound to me. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * per the above. Cary Bass (talk) 03:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Samekh

 * Hi, just requesting Editor status. I'm doing a fair bit of work on US voters go to the polls and being able to have my edits autosighted would make things easier. Thanks!.   סּ    Talk 12:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, you work seems to be solid. I will give you Editor status on a provisional basis. --SVTCobra 16:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DizzyStar
Requesting editor status - doing some reviews. I feel I am qualified after Hawthorn wins 2008 AFL Grand Final made main lead, and on the top two pages of a google search. -- DizzyStar (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * --RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you will go on to be a great user, but you are rather new Anonymous101talk 11:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Per - perhaps after you've got a bit more experience/a few more articles under your belt. Cirt (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

RockerballAustralia
Requesting editor status. I think that I am qualified after the aHawthorn wins 2008 AFL Grand Final article made main lead, and is in the top two pages of a google search. -- RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * I'm not happy to see sport as the main lead and there were a number of points with that article still needed addressed after it got there. This reflects more on the person putting it there and sighting it than you though. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which we all know was me. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 02:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * -- DizzyStar (talk) 10:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * - could use a bit more finesse and experience with regard to structure/formatting an article, and writing style/copyediting. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Kamnet
At the suggestion of brianmc I would like to request Flagged revision status, allowing me to auto-sight articles when I add audio transcripts. Kamnet (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * --Brian McNeil / talk 09:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anonymous101talk 15:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Motion to speedy close and grant per no objections. Any objections? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and granted him it. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've had considerable experience at enwiki, but now look to spend most of my time here. Requesting editor tools to help sighting articles that I have reviewed. R .T . 23:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support RT has contributed 6 published articles in 2 weeks: they show a good understanding of Wikinews editorial policy. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- ♪ Tempo Di  Valse ♪ 16:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections either. has been granted Editor status. --SVTCobra 01:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm requesting editors status. Though I have a small number of edits in English wikinews I am setting IW-links to the German wikinews, or correcting a typo here and there. I am a contributor to the German WN and WP as well. (See also de:Benutzer:Matthiasb) --Matthiasb (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. One of Matthiasb's interwiki links sat in the review queue for 2 hours today before being sighted.  That is not acceptable.  See his German WN contribution history --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Daniel (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(removal)

 * this version of an article covering the proposed introduction of Flagged Revisions on English Wikipedia was approved when, it appears, a competent review has not been carried out. There are serious issues surrounding neutrality, accuracy, and editorialising. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be some issue, and I completely agree that we should remove "editor" status easily. Therefore, I support the removal of rights. However, if the user shows he can be trusted with the tools again, I will happily support the rights being reinstated. Thanks, Anonymous101talk 18:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * per nom. Cirt (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - checking that the links work and that it "looks good" is no way to conduct a proper review. This is an egregious mistake, the user needs to earn the community's trust again. --SVTCobra 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * per this comment, I think the status can be withdrawn. It requires a bureaucrat to do it, but as nominator I would prefer someone else decide. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Editor status has been removed and this request should be considered closed (it does not require a bureaucrat). --SVTCobra 11:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I nominate Florentino Floro to have this tool. In his month here he has contributed many articles. The last few have got through the review phase very quickly, showing that he understands the Wikinews consensus for published articles. If he could flag revisions of his own or others contributions, that would be another useful hand at the pump. --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought he had it. I see no reason to wait three days since he does a great job here so I promoted him. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it just me, or is this the same guy who is indefinitely blocked on en.wiki? The ed17 (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps and it may also be the actual Florentino Floro. However, the user has shown a great capacity for creating synthesis articles here at Wikinews. --SVTCobra 23:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * @Ed17: Yes diff. I wasn't aware of that, but even if those troubles come here, Wikinews won't come to much additional harm because of the flagged revisions tool.  His track record here weighs very strongly in my mind.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I have any great worries about this, but the editor status would allow the user to publish stories and 'sight' his own revisions. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being, well, a jerk...but I felt like you guys should be made aware of this. The ed17 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad. If anomalous behavior begins to occur, it can be useful to have some background. So, consider us informed, and we will continue to offer this user the same respect and consideration as anyone else that comes by Wikinews. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Having had to deal with a very angry, very expensive Australia lawyer over a piece of information (relating to a current court case) which was patently false and offensive to their client, which was added by Floro, I must oppose this. Daniel (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt I have suffrage in this debate, and it looks like the editor status was already granted per PatrickFlaherty above, but having one of my only edits here being significant cleanup of one of Floro's recent articles... I can't imagine this is a good idea. Avruch (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Daniel and Avruch, I can't say I know enough about the specifics, but if Florentino Floro has been abusing the privileges that come with editor status, he can be nominated for removal, directly below this. We have an "easy come, easy go" standard for editor status. --SVTCobra 00:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Editor status was removed from by. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You might as well give it to me please. I promise not to abuse this awesome power for illegal, imoral or for improving my sex life, even though it needs it. I'm the same user as at the Wikipedia, and I have over 20,000 edits there, and am in good standing. I've contributed to 3 news items here so far, with no problems.Wolfkeeper (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * - "You might as well give it to me please"? Ed 10:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm supposed to beg? Where's that written?Wolfkeeper (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you ever went through an adminship vote or a vote for any other kinds of tools? That's basically glorified begging. Someone who has so many edits on WP should know that, whether it's a good thing or not. Mike Halterman (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * - In the past 12 months you have only contributed to one article. The need doesn't seem to be there, though I appreciate your promise not to abuse the privileges for sexual benefit. --SVTCobra 23:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have actually written one, and contributed to three in total. The third one was merged and isn't easily found. The lack of the ability to review news items makes me less likely to contribute here. The most recent article had minor errors or was otherwise incomplete, but there was little point in me correcting them, because nobody would have seen the corrections anyway without reviewing the versions.Wolfkeeper (talk) 00:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You've just authorised this ability on somebody banned on multiple wikis, but not authorised it for me-somebody in good standing. And it took two days for the article I submitted to get through the authorisation process, what's the point of that for a news site? Forget it, you guys are a waste of space. I'm never coming back, and I encourage others to do the same.Wolfkeeper (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Florentino Floro; his status was reverted. See Special:Log/rights. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not comment when this debate was relevant, but I will now. Anyone who is effectively unknown to the Wikinews community will meet the same response for posting such a fatuous request for the privilege. Good standing elsewhere is a plus point when you have demonstrated an understanding of how this project works - it is quite, quite different from Wikipedia. If I recall correctly, I looked at the user contributions when this request was first published - less than 50. By no means enough to establish that the user understood project quirks.
 * Wikinews is still getting to grips with the implementation and use of flagged revisions. With the small contributor base there is likely nobody has the time to analyse your contributions elsewhere when they are cited as a justification for a privilege here. As mentioned, that does not increase confidence that you have understood and will apply things like the style guide. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wolfkeeper, I am sorry you feel that way. But whether you had editor status or not would not have affected the time it took to publish the story you wrote as you cannot review your own articles anyway. --SVTCobra 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Not promoted. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm trying to improve the quality of various articles by fixing typos, spelling and grammar errors, etc. Unfortunately many (older) articles are semi-protected and thus not editable. Currently I'm mentioning the typo on the talk page of the associated article, but that process is quite tedious and not very rewarding (instead of just fixing the typo directly). Therefore, I would like to apply for editor status, so I can fix those typos and errors myself. My main accounts are w:en:User:Van der Hoorn and w:nl:User:Van der Hoorn. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, editor status does not allow you to edit archived articles (they are fully protected, in other words editable only by administrators). The only thing editor status will allow you to do is to make changes to published articles immediately, without having to wait for others to approve them (see Flagged revisions and Editor for more information). However, I think that "editor" will still be useful to you. . ♪Tempo di Valse ♪  20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahh, I thought they were semi-protected. Van der Hoorn (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Any objections to if I give this user "editor" anyway? It will be useful to him, and I see no reason to wait for the full three days, he's been doing such a good job. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 15:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well, no objections? User promoted. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

✅. Cirt (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I just arrived today. I haven't been writing articles here, but I would like review articles for content, grammar, and spelling. I am a top Wikipedia contributor, maybe number 150. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Only two edits here, one to his user page and the other one to make this request. I would like to see some positive contributions for a few days first, to make sure that this user is familiar with local policy, before this tool is given. Wikinews is much different from Wikipedia, and while being a trusted contributor on the latter is certainly a plus when considering such requests, that alone will not get one this tool. I would recommend applying for editor status again later, when you have some more edits/experience here. Best regards, ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 03:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed. Cirt (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments. If you stay around here for a month or two, get experience, and know the polices, you should pass your request. As of now, though, you have too little experience here to warrant a support from me. I'll gladly support if you come back later, though. R .<font face="Times New Roman" size="2.1" color="DimGray">T . 12:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Huge cajones to apply with your second edit to the project. No. Project scope, guidelines, and approach are significantly different from Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I motion to speedy close. Does anyone agree? <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="Red">R .<font face="Times New Roman" size="2.1" color="DimGray">T . 14:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, speedily closed. I suggest that this user gain some experience on Wikinews, and apply again in a few weeks, when he has at least a few dozen edits. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 14:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Request editor permission to do reviews.SriMesh | talk  17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Recommend speedy upgrade. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Watch for your first full initial review or two SriMesh. The criteria for passing peer review aren't as scary as good or featured on Wikipedia, but there's probably just as much you need to know about our policies as you do when judging those. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to wait the full three days to grant this user editor status, seeing as s/he's doing such a good job around here -- over seven hundred edits to the project. I went ahead and gave SriMesh the tool. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪ 19:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting editor status for this now-approved bot to edit mainspace pages with greater ease. <font color="#CC7722" face="Georgia">♪ Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Georgia">di <font color="green" face="Georgia">valse ♪  19:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * for now. Are we sure the bot runs correctly now? See the bot's talk page for what I mean. If someone knows, please tell. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it was approved to run at WN:BOT, so I'm assuming it's been trusted to work well. <font color="#CC7722" face="Georgia">♪ Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Georgia">di <font color="green" face="Georgia">valse ♪  20:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * no issues here. --<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif"> Sken   my talk 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No concerns <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="Red">red  - <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.1" color="black">thunder  .  11:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 supports and 1 neutral, closed as PASS. <font color="#CC7722" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Georgia">di <font color="green" face="Georgia">valse  13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

My first article edit here was in June 2005. I have contributed on and off since then, and believe I understand the community's policies. One of my prime motivations for applying is to be able to use Template:Peer reviewed where appropriate to help the article publication process. I am an administrator at English Wikipedia, and a significant contributor to Wikimedia Commons. Superm401 | Talk 02:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User seems to understand local policy, has well over a hundred edits. No objections. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪  02:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * , has the experience and policy knowledge, no objections. <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="Red">red  - <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.1" color="black">thunder  .  11:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Only four edits this year, before that the last one was September 2008. Van der Hoorn (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * , leaning oppose, per Van der Hoorn. Ed 23:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 75% support, I think I can safely close this as a pass. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">♪Tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Papyrus">di <font color="green" face="papyrus">Valse ♪  02:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-published and sighted article. Please review history - it should have failed review on style guide reasons (the 'visits unannounced visits' title).

Comments

 * Please note, I did not place a vote on this. If someone wants to take this up with the user, please do so. Published, and first lead just seems too much. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * I think this is an overreaction. Cary Bass (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * per Cary --<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif"> Sken   my talk 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * User has shown himself to be a good, reliable contributor in the past, and one mistake resulting from not fully understanding that part of the review policy shouldn't result in him being de-editored. <font color="#CC7722" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Georgia">di <font color="green" face="Georgia">valse  17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Article was first published, because it was breaking news. Calebrw noted: "Self Publish per breaking. Will expand immediate." The only source then was the Times article, so one could say it was breaking news (I know, because I edited it immediately after Calebrw). Is there a policy on self-publishing breaking news? If not, there should be; one way or the other. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy is rather contradictory on this matter: WN:SG says that it is OK to self-publish in the event of breaking news, while Reviewing articles says it isn't. In practise, it is frowned upon to self-publish, even in case of of breaking news. <font color="#CC7722" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="#00008B" face="Georgia">di <font color="green" face="Georgia">valse  20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we should make them consistent, otherwise the same thing will probably happen again. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The title was a "typo" if you will; the self-publishing was a misunderstanding of the guidelines for "breaking" news. --SVTCobra 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: Request closed as successful by Tempodivalse at 18:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to request editor status. I've been an admin on en-Wikipedia for 3½ years (just over 60,000 edits there), and am active on Commons and en-Wiktionary too. I'd find it useful to be able to sight edits, deal with editprotected requests (or make syntax or style edits to archived pages), and also ease the burden of others having to sight my edits. <font color="#8b4513">Mind <font color="#ee8811">matrix 17:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

 * I am reluctant to vote while your userpage is a redlink. Consider this an invitation to turn it into a sales pitch. ;-) --Brian McNeil / talk 18:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a salesperson, so I made a simple page with links to a few of my active accounts. <font color="#8b4513">Mind <font color="#ee8811">matrix 18:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * User can be trusted, has a decent understanding of policy. I should, however, point out that archived pages are fully-protected, editable only by administrators, and editor status doesn't allow you to edit them. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  17:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems fine. Van der Hoorn (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 10:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been two and a half days since the request and nobody has made any objections, so I'm closing this as a pass . <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please can I have editor rights? I hope I am requesting right, I couldn't find any instructions. I have over 11000 edits on enWiki. Computerjoe (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Votes

 * Seems to understand our basic policies, can be trusted. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  14:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 15:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

'''User has withdrawn request. Closed by Tempodivalse'''

So, I know I only have eight edits here, but I do have 458 on the seWP and 2,961 on the enWP. Umm..., so then can I have editor rights? EDIT: Thought I should add a link to my global edits. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * Votes


 * I'm afraid that I can't support your request. I trust you, based on your good edits on other wikis, and I'm sure you wouldn't do anything untoward with the bit, but I would like to see you make at least a few dozen more edits to main namespace here before giving out the editor tool, to make sure that you understand our local policy. Wikinews is much different from Wikipedia, and while being a trusted user elsewhere is a plus when considering such requests, that alone won't get you the bit. I'd like to suggest that you write an article or two here and/or edit some existing articles, to help get a feel of how we run things around here, and then apply again. Best, <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  02:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay then, close this and I will get to your suggestions soon. --The New Mikemoral (talk) 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Request closed as withdrawn. <font color="darkred" face="Georgia">tempo <font color="darkblue" face="Georgia">divalse  02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)