I emailed the correspondence interview to scoop. I interviewed the subject myself via email. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rogerroyal (talk • contribs) 03:34, 6 January 2014
I was also hoaxed by the company Swenzy several times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rogerroyal (talk • contribs) 03:48, 6 January 2014
I saw one of their hoaxes opblackout, it was the first one. I saw it on vocativ, a news website. The other hoaxes were Remember the 13th and briansannouncement, I saw all their hoaxes on news sites that’s how I found out about them, and then they were revealed as hoaxes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rogerroyal (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 January 2014?
That’s the state of things at this moment; I’m suspending my review at this point (for the simple reason that it’s late at night where I am). –Pi zero (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I was told that the title was a bit too negative, So I renamed it to a much more general and neutral title “Wikinews interviews the hoaxing and buying youtube views scandal company, Swenzy”, If someone can please move the article to this new name. Thank you!
Are they all required to support claims made in the first few paragraphs? Or can the list of sources be trimmed a fair bit to only leave essential sources for verifying these claims? Gryllida (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the title should include “YouTube” like the original title. The second part of interview questions were regarding a view count enforcement that occurred with YouTube and the connection between that and Swenzy. I updated the new questions, and I sent an email to scoop forwarding the interview they sent me back.