Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Growl41

+Reviewer
I have been asked to re-format and maintain the Maryland Entrepreneur's Guide (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Maryland_Entrepreneur%27s_Guide) by the University of Maryland Carey School of Law Business Law Society and the Maryland State Bar Association. The major changes to the Guide that I have made recently have been reviewed and approved, however, I noticed that all minor edits I make to the page come up as pending changes. I would like to be granted reviewer status so I can more easily maintain the Guide and implement changes that first meet the approval of the MSBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growl41 (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 20 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * As an aside implement changes that first meet the approval of the MSBA. would be contrary to policy as it implies that the MSBA has control over the book. I trust you realise that having the reviewer flag wouldn't give you the power to reject changes by other editors that weren't "approved by the MSBA"? QU TalkQu 21:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless an administrator has changed the settings then all edits will appear to all users whether approved or not. Logged in users can change settings so they can only see approved edits.  The exceptions to this are generally Wikijunior and certain high-vandalism-targets.  We would be happy to grant you Reviewer rights but this won't change how your edits are shown to other readers.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 23:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just come from a meeting with MSBA members where I was told that the MSBA does want the Guide to be a dynamic resource that gives small business owners and attorneys (anyone) the ability to edit freely. I understand that having a reviewer status would not allow me to reject changes by other editors that were not given prior approval. I would still like a reviewer flag in order to deter against vandalism and guarantee that the Guide remains user friendly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growl41 (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 21 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * You don't need the reviewer bit to deter vandalism and keep the Guide user friendly. Moreover, if you're going to be editing it on a regular basis, you'll receive the bit automatically after a while.  There's no apparent reason to rush this automatic process since there isn't anything you want to do that needs the bit.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 06:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The reviewer bit may not be entirely necessary to deter vandalism, but it would allow me to correct vandalism and keep the Guide user friendly without having every change I make come up as pending. We are going to begin advertising the Guide in newsletters and local journals beginning next month, and will be expecting a lot of adjustments as more people become aware of its existence. With a reviewer status I can better ensure that the majority of users are viewing a completed and authoritative version of the Guide by limiting the need for users to compare the latest draft to previous ones. Wikipedia states that The purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection... This is exactly what I would like to do for the Guide, and unless I can automatically receive the reviewer bit before March 2nd, I would like to rush the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Growl41 (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 21 February 2012‎ (UTC)


 * I again am forced to point out that exceptions to the automated process must be few if the process is to have any purpose and the requirements made any validity. I agree with Pi zero, there is no need to jump the hoop here jump the gun here, continue editing and you will have the flag. Note also that we are not Wikipedia and the flag here has deeper implications especially when attributing the highest levels, we work on books, most will have a complex structure or require a deeper level of knowledge to review, an edit pending may not only mean that no one has looked at the change, but that no one felt competent enough or even entitled to validate it (esthetical and image alterations for instance). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 06:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion and request is now irrelevant because the user has since been automatically promoted to Reviewer.--ЗAНИA talk 19:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)