An example of one of the fabulous free images available at Wikimedia Commons.
I first registered this account - my first - April 20, 2007. Since then, I've gotten involved pretty deeply in AfD work. I see it as a chance to triage articles that are flawed, but may yet have potential.
If you need access to a Wikipedia article that has been deleted, ask me. If it's not a copyright violation, libel, or personal information, and has not been deleted as a suspected biographies of living persons violation, I will userfy the article for you.
I maintain a sock account AVPW primarily for use on public networks. In the event of a compromised account, I specifically request any administrator to honor a request from AVPW to block this account, and absolve you in advance of any repercussions.
Note: Given the situation, I think WP:ANI would be a better venue for this kind of report. The issues here run much deeper than simple vandalism, of which there has been little that I can see. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I suspect ANI will be a discussion too far, giving them more and more airtime. they have also just been reverted for this edit which is a further personal attack. SPI is likely to block them or the COIN discussion will, but they are now displaying petty vindictive behaviour, stretching good faith beyond its elastic limit 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 01:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
And again here using an article talk page to impugn the subject of the article by calling the eponymous editor into disrepute 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 01:42, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy. For a username to be blatantly promotional, there must be a link between the username and the user's edits. Consider re-reporting if a connection becomes clear through the user's edits. I also don't see any edits after their most recent warning about editing with a conflict of interest. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 20:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I only put the paid editing template up about 30 minutes ago. It certainly looks odd - I think they may all be works for hire. Secretlondon (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Wait until the user edits. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Requests for page protection
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: To insert Semi-Protection as the page is about the Prime Minister of Mauritius and repeated edits by users some with unreliable sources and stated in a negative style than the original sources. SwiftReader1994 (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
As the editors who seem to be going back and forth on this are mostly extended-confirmed, only full protection would have a chance to work and we rarely impose that for very long. I also note that no one's using the talk page ... we do like to see that you've taken that route.
If you want full protection to force discussion on talk, let us know. Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Vandalism and BLP violations from a variety of IPs today. Should we semi for a bit?. Diannaa (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Indefinite extended protection: The vandalism has seemed to calm down more, talk page is full of polite requests, I think it's appropriate to lower to extended protection. EP is still pretty high, but now non-Admin experienced editors can edit. Avishai11 (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I dunno if I'd risk it if I were an admin. There's a damn good reason why it was protected to begin with. LilianaUwU(talk / contributions) 19:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Not unprotected per above. The tone of the talk page is not, with this article, sufficiently predictive IMO of how things would go if we unprotect. Especially lately. Daniel Case (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Addendum: As noted in the edit-request section below, the talk page is ECP. That might have something to do with the prevalence of "polite requests". Daniel Case (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:
"She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"
1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.
Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[1] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.
2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[2][3][4].VR(Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[5]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[6] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[7]VR(Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[8]][[9]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense. Can an admin please check this out!!! Avishai11 (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The 70% figure in both the primary and the secondary source refers to the deaths that were verified by the UN Human Rights Office, not the totality of deaths in Gaza.
Accordingly, the current phrasing "70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children" is inaccurate and should be changed to "70% of the 8,119 verified deaths were women and children" Zlmark (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
in the content, higehst grossing franchises, rank 4 (Cop Universe), in that one, the movie Singham Returns (2014) is highlighted in green which indicates it is a recent movie, but actually the movie Singham Again (2024) should be highlighted in green because unlike Singham Returns, it is a recent movie, it has wrongly been marked, kindly correct it. Thanks :) Zev the Editor (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Source? Avishai11 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request the addition of the following paragraph on Singapore’s support for a two-state solution under the section "International Positions on the Two-State Solution" in the Two-state solution article:
International Positions on the Two-State Solution
Singapore: Singapore supports a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advocating for a negotiated outcome aligned with relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. According to Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore believes this approach allows Israelis and Palestinians to coexist peacefully and securely, considering it the only viable path toward a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution. Singapore also consistently upholds the Palestinian right to a homeland. The PLO, which constitutes the key pillar of the current Palestinian Authority, accepts Israel's right to exist and has renounced terrorism.[1]
I support this. It makes sense, has quotations and everything. If only an admin would answer... @Avishai11Avishai11 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
In the "Indirect" section, the following sentence should be added after "186,000 or even more deaths could be attributable to the current conflict in Gaza":
Three days after the publication, one of the writers, Professor Martin McKee, clarified that the 186,000 figure was “purely illustrative”[1] and stated that “our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”[2]
I would like to request that a change be made for accuracy under the subhead Origin and spread: Other events. There is a reference to a photo of a man carrying two dead geese, but it is actually only one goose. Footnotes 54, 58, and 59 all state that there is one goose in the photo. Footnote 60 says two geese, but this is evidently a mistake on TMZ's part as the photo itself clearly shows only one goose.
I suggest that the wording "man carrying two dead Canada geese" be changed to "man carrying a dead Canada goose".
In the next sentence I suggest that the wording "The geese were roadkill" either be changed to "The goose was roadkill" or that this part of the sentence be eliminated since the only source for the goose being roadkill is the TMZ article which may be unreliable and perhaps should be removed as a reference? It's possible the official quoted by TMZ was referring to a different incident altogether involving two roadkill geese and TMZ mistakenly linked this to the Columbus photo.
Then I suggest in the following sentence the wording "stealing geese" be changed to "stealing a goose".
Also, I would like to suggest that the semi-protected status be lifted from the Talk page of this article. 2600:100A:B10A:4AA1:0:21:7E13:E301 (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
I suggest changing the map on the states agreeing with with the Genocide charge (green coloured) to include Spain and Ireland, as these declared to join South Africa's case in the ICJ and generally agree with the allegations in public statements. Ireland also passed a motion in the parliament declaring it a genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9e8:9a4:6900:50f:51e:c5cd:b7cf (talk • contribs) 15:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
In the state results table, I would like to request that the columns labeled Margin and Margin swing be filled in, for those rows/states in which the relevant data has already been entered. Obviously not every state has data, but most do.
This should be trivial, at least for Margin, but the inability to sort by margin has been annoying me for a week now. LoganStokols (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
In this article, the following section is problematic.
"On 9 or 10 October, Hamas offered to release all civilian hostages held in Gaza if Israel would call off its planned invasion of the Gaza Strip, but the Israeli government rejected the offer.[242]"
It needs to be taken out completely.
The original article is based on an interview in Times of Israel newspaper. In the interview, the interviewee mentions this as a side comment:
“We later found out that Hamas had offered on October 9 or 10 to release all the civilian hostages in exchange for the IDF not entering the Strip, but the government rejected the offer.”
There is no mention of how they found out, and this is pretty much the only "evidence" given in support of any offer from Hamas to release all civilian hostages. It is less than hearsay.
The infobox with the description "Israeli and Palestinian deaths preceding the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, of which most were civilians" cites this link to the UN OCHAoPt. This no longer links to any publicly available information. Luckily, there is an archive link as well.Nevermind! Issue at my side. Still, the rest of the request should make sense.There is an archive link. This archive is not sufficient, however, since the embedded figure is non-interactive, which makes it impossible to confirm the information that the citation is supposed to demonstrate (civilian death ratio).
This archive link should be replaced with one from the Internet Archive. As an example, this would be appropriate. The archive loads painfully slowly (might take literal hours, I didn't care to wait), but it does technically load (I'm pretty sure), and I expect that the embedded figure should work.
As an aside, the embedded figure is still available, since it was hosted on a different site and not taken down. This, unfortunately, is not appropriate for inclusion in the article, since app.powerbi.com isn't exactly a reliable source. But it is great if you don't want to wait for the IA archive to load.This is pointless information since the original site is still available.Dieknon (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi, This is from Naveen from Direction Crew. We need to remove the name "Stefan Ritcher" from the "Screenplay by" column in the infobox template and "He co-wrote the film's script with Stefan Richter." This line is from the pre-production also to be removed. IloveCinema07 (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
The talk page is not protected. Ask there. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 09:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Add three categories to the article: "Category:Massachusetts Democrats", "Category:People from Hattiesburg, Mississippi", and "Category: LGBTQ people from West Virginia".
If the article for Wu already directly mentioned where she is from, I see no reason for the categories to not include the information, but because the article is under full protection and the discussion page is under a 30/500 lock, this is the only way I can suggest the edit. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
After the sentence "In humans, blood is pumped from the strong left ventricle of the heart through arteries to peripheral tissues and returns to the right atrium of the heart through veins." I would like to request for the addition of "Blood then returns to the right atrium through the superior vena cava, inferior vena cava, and coronary vein."
I believe talking about blood moving directly from the veins to the right ventricle is misleading to readers; adding in this sentence better encompasses the passage of blood through the entire circulatory system. Connellk2003 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done The article talk page is not protected; please make this request there. Daniel Case (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Edit: There has been many people that have noticed, as well as myself, that the page wiki Misandry unfairly emphasizes that the term "misandry" is closely associated to the controversial and stigmatized communities of Men's rights activists and the "manoshere". This, I believe, does harm to men/young men who have actually suffered from prejudice, stereotypes, harassment etc. due to the complex issues that men suffer from. Regardless of if men's complex issues are/were a product of a patriarchal society, men still do face particularly prejudice and stereotyping from women, female family members, society and gynocentric entities. Its it possible to possibly have the subject of Men's rights activists brought up in its own subcategory and not at the forefront of the introduction? This undermines experiences and nuanced issues that men face in an ever-complex society, and at a time of a lot of gender polarity, this is unfair and also seemingly disingenuous. 173.196.232.226 (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done The article talk page isn't protected; please make this request there. Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Following the feedback I got some months ago, I have improved previous articles created, see Pounded Yam, Azaiki library, Palace of Olowo of Owo and I'm ready to start creating article without patrol to ease the workloads of new page patrols. I appreciate the feedback given earlier. Tesleemah (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([17]). — MusikBottalk 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry if this wasn't clear last time, Tesleemah, but with the rate of deletion of your articles so far, it is unlikely you will be eligible for this right for the foreseeable future. Not done. – Joe (talk) 11:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
What if I create more article that pass AFD? 99% of my articles deleted were in my early days to be honest in 2022, ever since I have continually improved my knowledge about Wikipedia guide, notability and editing policies. since then there has been just 1 nominated for AFD which was not very fair due to offwiki discussion. I will be more vigilant going forward but is this really a lost case? I'd like to know how to proceed going forward Tesleemah (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest you focus on other things than autopatrolled. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Alright, thank you Tesleemah (talk) 12:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
The situation that resulted in this MfD is leading me to request this permission. This user page was being used as an AfC submission, which I didn't know what to do with after declining, since the most likely solution (moving to draftspace and suppressing the redirect, see Timtrent's and DoubleGrazing's comments) was unavailable to me. Instead, I simply blanked it in a panic. I request this permission because it would be quite useful in my NPP work (and my recently acquired job of closing RMs) in general, including cases like that, as well as the unusually common situation of people accidentally creating drafts and user pages in mainspace (see User:JJPMaster/CSD log#November 2024 for my G6 nominations for three of those cases; see also User:JJPMaster/Draftify log). Thank you! JJPMaster (she/they) 03:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I'm currently planning to host a campaign and will be needing it to make my communication easier, faster and saver as an organiser. Royalesignature (talk). 17:04, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Hello hello, I have been a Wikipedian for well over 4 months now, and I feel that I have learned a great many things about the site in terms of editing, content, policies, and conduct that I could have never imagined beforehand. If given this right, I humbly commit to using it to the utmost competent and fair / legitimate nature that I possibly can. Thank you Aliy Dawut (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I have been contributing to pages for three years now, with prior experience in patrolling edit filter log. I would like to get reviewer rights so I can contribute to Wikipedia in more ways than I am able to, presently, and help with the backlog. Since my last request in July, I've been making a track record of communicating collegially with other editors, in my talk page and elsewhere. I hope you'll consider me. Thank you. — hhypeboyh💬 • ✏️ 23:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([18]). — MusikBottalk 23:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I've been doing RC Patrolling (as a part of Anti-Vandalism) on Wikipedia for a while now, and I think that having the Pending Changes reviewer permission could be a good idea - there have been numerous instances involving a pending changes edit that I look at while looking through Special:RecentChanges that i wanted to accept/deny/etc, and i feel that this permission would be beneficial for my efficeincy. DM5Pedia 04:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I believe that I'd be a good Pending Changes Reviewer, as I have a good amount of time on my hands, and can do monotonous tasks, like denying obvious vandalism, and the like. I meet, what I believe are all the requirements for this right, and humbly ask to receive this privilege. Thanks in advance! Legendbird (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done. Only 8 article edits in the past 12 months. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason for requesting pending changes reviewer rights: I am an Wikipedian for more than three years and part of various wikiprojects I need permission to expand my works on Wikipedia and also to observe Wikipedia articles. Cactinites (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([19]). — MusikBottalk 15:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. Permissions granted for 3 months. Feel free to return here to ask for permanent permissions once the trial period has expired. If you don't use edit summaries when accepting or rejecting pending changes, this permission will be revoked. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 16:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I've been using Wikipedia on-and-off since 2020, but I'm starting to become more active. I'd like to become a pending change reviewer, as I've often wanted to help out but have struggled finding where I can actually contribute, and I think this is a good place to contribute. I'm familiar with the guidelines, as well. Thx56 (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has 56 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBottalk 21:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Not done. With only 101 edits under your belt, and only 56 of those to articles, I think it's too soon to judge whether or not you've established a track record that demonstrates your understanding of Wikipedia policies. --Ahecht (TALK PAGE) 15:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Thanks anyways! Thx56 (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I have been patrolling RC since 8 August 2024 and would ask to have Pending changes reviewer rights. I've initially had a request for this permission here on 30 September 2024 but was denied. Anyways, I have stumbled upon across lots of Pending edits on RC and some of them appear to be constructive. I have a good understanding in basic and some advanced Wikipedia policies and have been editing Wikipedia since April 2024 and have nearly 9,000 edits in my contributions. Thank you. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([20]). — MusikBottalk 06:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia and focused on editing articles, combating vandalism and creating new articles. I am requesting for PCR right to speeding up the review process for pending changes. I am familiar with key Wikipedia content policies, including vandalism, biographies of living persons (BLP), neutral point of view (NPOV), verifiability, and copyright compliance. I have also been involved in patrolling recent changes, where I use tool Twinkle to revert vandalism. With my experience and understanding of these policies, I believe that I can effectively contribute to reviewing pending changes. NxcryptoMessage 18:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I've had an account since June 2023; however, I started actively editing from July 2024. I may not have been on Wikipedia for a long time, but I believe I have a pretty good understanding of the policies. I've read the important policies for this including WP:Vandalism, WP:BLP, WP:Copyrights. I've participated in AfD discussions and I am currently also receiving training for WP:NPP. TNM101 (chat) 10:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I am a regular editor on Wikipedia. I have new page review, autopatroller, rollback permission and participate in draft article reviews. I would enjoy helping with pending changes review. Demt1298 (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
In the last two months, in addition to my editing activities, I'm also quite active in rollbacks (primarily vandalism); in order to facilitate my work (for example here, without rollback rights, I had complications), if you consider that I'm skilled in this, I request the granting of these rights. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey, I was granted a 3-month trial by Robertsky, and I used Anti-Vandal to counter vandalism. However, it was not renewed. Now I would like to continue using this amazing tool to counter vandalism. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 14:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done I reviewed your contributions and found little to no recent anti-vandalism work. If you're still interested in this tool then please spend at least a month actively patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are consistently warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily: Does my previous trial not provide enough evidence of my experience with this tool? I don’t like the layout of SPECIAL:RECENTCHANGES, where I have to manually handle these tasks. That’s why I haven’t done much anti-vandalism work recently. However, during my trial period, when I had access to the Anti-Vandal tool, I performed sufficient anti-vandalism work. Where is it written that I need to perform anti-vandalism work in recent days to qualify for the rollback role? The requirement simply states, “At least a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges.” I have used the Anti-Vandal tool during my 3-month trial and demonstrated sufficient experience. Additionally, I consistently warn users when I revert their edits. GrabUp - Talk 05:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Are you aware that rollback functionality is already available in Twinkle or Ultraviolet and that you don't need elevated permissions to access these tools? The rollback right gates access to high-volume anti-vandalism tools such as Huggle or AntiVandal which are for patrolling RecentChanges. In the wrong hands, these tools can cause a lot damage in a short amount of time. So I have to admit, this is an unusual request. It has been months since your trial ended, I haven't seen any obvious need for the right based on your recent contributions, and you don't seem to be interested in patrolling RecentChanges, so why are you suddenly interested in this right? -Fastily 06:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I want access to the Anti-Vandal tool, which will automate the process. I didn’t say I dislike the RecentChanges feature, but rather the manual process involved. I have not caused any type of damage with any tools I have more valuable than the rollback right, nor did I misuse this tool when I had it for three months. I hope you understand. Cheers! GrabUp - Talk 06:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, I see that you were blocked for disruptive hat collecting last June. Would you care to comment on that? Also courtesy ping for @Joe Roe. -Fastily 09:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily: Yeah, I was. It was because of NPP. Since then, I have done a lot of work, which is why I gained trust and received the AP and NPP temp flags. I am using these flags not just for show. Also, I would like to add that I want my application to be reviewed by another admin, as Fastily may lost community trust during the Recall and has just posted a resignation request at the Bureaucrats’ noticeboard. If recent vandalism work is needed, then update the notification at this permission to state, ‘Recent one month of experience is needed,’ instead of ‘One month of experience needed.’ GrabUp - Talk 08:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Recent one month of experience is not strictly necessary. You can get this right with, say, recent three weeks of experience. What is necessary is having at least one month of any experience. That's why the header says that. JJPMaster (she/they) 15:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
@JJPMaster: Thanks for your reply. What I’m saying is that I had this right before, which expired in August, and I want it again. I held the right for three months and obviously have more than one month of experience. GrabUp - Talk 15:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting rollback rights to further help with my contribution to anti-vandalism, with I having done actions to prevent vandalism on pages like Johnny Somali and Islamic State-related articles. RowanJ LP (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done I see you've got limited or no experience of patrolling WP:recentchanges, which is where rollback comes in handy. For your use case, installing WP:Twinkle is instead a logical next step. This allows you to semi-automatically WP:warn users, which you don't do consistently. When you revert vandalism, you should always leave a warning, which you didn't do for quite a few reverts including [21]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to cautiously begin assisting in identifying and removing vandalism. Thanks. WhyIAddA (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has 74 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBottalk 04:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done I'm sorry, but you fail the minimum criteria for this permission (200 edits to mainspace) and you don't seem to be involved in any recent anti-vandalism work. I suggest getting yourself involved in antivandalism and editing for a month or two more before re-applying for this user right. Fathoms Below(talk) 06:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
I am a newpage editor with autopatrol approval. I have been monitoring the Recent Chane list working to revert mainly vandalism while continuing to maintain my own editing. Demt1298 (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I have about 2,500 total edits on Wikipedia of which more than 300 are in the module and template namespaces. I have edited 6 sandbox pages, however I have only 3 edit request. I have never received blocks and I've definitely been editing more than one year. — TheThomanski | t | c | 01:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Est omnino difficile iudicare inclusionis meritum cuiusdam rei in encyclopædia cum ratio sciendi quid populi referat incerta sit, sed nihilominus aliquid encyclopædiam dedecet
It is generally difficult to judge the worthiness of a particular topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia considering that there is no certain way to know what interests people, but some topics nevertheless are not fit for an encyclopedia.
This motto reflects the desire of these Wikipedians to be reluctant, but not entirely unwilling, to remove articles from Wikipedia.
Committed identity: 5e0a9af339f30221a08fa86264cf1a81e3637ef17bd7ba87260c63b0fea3cdb0b55f545f061dd97184aa4061626c8c41b7237f4b18ccfdd096bff83e92ce9fc5 is a SHA-512commitment to this user's real-life identity.
Wikipedia editor
This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xymmax.
I copied this source code from someone's user page I liked. I did not save the name. Thank you, whomever you are.
