No edits since being warned. Re-report if this user continues vandalising or spamming after sufficient warnings. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently. Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Low confidence There is low confidence in this filter test, so please be careful when blocking. -- DQB (owner / report) 20:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "long username without spaces" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 20:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, they misspelled pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, so there's that. I'd probably give them a pass on this one, since it's (almost) a real word, but if others want to make them change it, ok too. — rsjaffe🗣️ 20:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
This filter is designed to pick up other things, very long words are not the target here. Secretlondon (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
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.
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Activity on the page is so infrequent that I don't think PCP is needed. Fathoms Below(talk) 22:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Pending-changes protected for a period of one month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Edit conflict with User:Fathoms Below's assessment. BusterD (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC) Undid self. BusterD (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Seeing the last 50 edits stretch back to September of last year seems like not even PCP is needed, even if it is designed to be applied to pages that are hardly edited. Though we can disagree on our assessments, and I still feel like the threshold hasn't been met even if the bar is lower for pending changes. Fathoms Below(talk) 22:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Mobile editor was warned & continued to disrupt the page. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Can we at least lock up the page...... Editors don't want to waste time having to warn obvious vandals multiple times. Common sense applied please. Moxy🍁 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Persistent sockpuppetry: bad news and please don't add reliable sources and production. 2605:59C8:9F3:C110:4166:2042:F0B3:D16A (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – One of the vandal IP's 125.163.221.188 (talk·contribs) made a BLP-violating edit to the article as soon as protection was lifted [6]. Thebirdlover (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 03:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Repeated addition of brochure text from various IP addresses. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. The latest additions aren't adverts, although it does appear to use an unreliable source. Regardless, this has morphed into more of a content dispute, so both you and the IP need to use the talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:49, 3 December 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.
Reason: COVID 19 isn’t a huge topic anymore, I think the protection can be reduced to semi. Heyaaaaalol (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
@HJ Mitchell: you did the most recent protection. I think the reason for the current EC protection is likely no longer a concern. There are a couple of old but reasonable edit requests on the talk page too. Is it OK with you to reduce to semi? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
HJ did a visibility change to a vandal's edit. @El C did the most recent protection level change. Zinnober9 (talk) 02:19, 1 December 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[7] 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.[8][9][10].VR(Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[11]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[12] 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."[13]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.[[14]][[15]] 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)
This appears to have been dealt with? Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 23 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)
This one, too? Selfstudier (talk) 16:15, 23 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)
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.
Add US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to Parties list
Add US Marshal Service to Parties list
Add Arlington County Police to Parties list
Add US Park Police to Parties List
Change 'Trump achieved a decisive victory in the electoral college' to 'Trump won the electoral college.'
I know reliable sources are using the word "decisive," but it feels a little too editorializing for the tone of Wikipedia. 2600:1700:46B0:D50:3074:103:DAF0:F89F (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I want it to be added somewhere that Kamala Harris, despite her loss, received about 74.5 million votes, surpassing Trump's vote count in 2020. She also received almost 10 million more votes than Hillary Clinton did in 2016, and received the 3rd highest vote count of any nominee in history, and the most for any woman in American political history. Nate12346 (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Could you provide source(s) please? Lectonar (talk) 08:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
The article references a Brookings poll[1]
in its body under: Academic and legal discourse->Middle Eastern studies.
The lead appears to misrepresent the information presented in the body.
In the lead, please change:
−
Amajority of mostly US-based Middle East scholars believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".
+
According to a recent Middle East Scholar Barometer poll of 758 mostly US-based Middle East scholars, a majority of those respondents believe Israel's actions in Gaza were intended to make it uninhabitable for Palestinians, and 75% of them say Israel's actions in Gaza constitute either genocide or "major war crimes akin to genocide".
The wording found in the article body: "A Brookings 23 May to 6 June 2024 survey asked 758 Middle East scholars and experts who study the issue, most in the United States: "How would you define Israel's current military actions in Gaza?" The responses were: "major war crimes akin to genocide", 41%; "genocide", 34%; "major war crimes but not akin to genocide", 16%; "unjustified actions but not major war crimes", 4%; "justified actions under the right to self-defense", 4%; and "I don't know", 2%."
One single poll is almost certainly undue for the lead of any article, but if it will stand, it should accurately reflect the source. Mikewem (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
" matter and energy may also be converted to one another."
change the word matter to mass, it is mass and energy which are interchangeable, not matter. 2600:1017:A8FF:4F53:781F:A832:2C3:90A7 (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I want to add more information in the pregnancy subsection. This includes how pregnancy and cancer be related and include similar immune functions. Prarthanarawal (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Remsense ‥ 论 01:40, 3 December 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 would kindly like to submit a request for autopatrolled rights. I have created 50+ articles since 2017, which you will find listed on my user page here, none of which have been deleted nor have received any new page reviewers' comments in quite some time. I have also improved thousands more articles across Wikipedia. I am mainly interested in increasing the coverage of all things Brussels-related. Thanks in advance! Jason Lagos (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request autopatrolled rights, as I have been creating and plan to create many articles on the lists of chemical compounds that are well cited and have historically had few issues. I have also created other articles on biography, video games, and other subjects, which I may unreview myself if there are any doubts towards their suitability to the encyclopedia; I am mainly asking for this right for the chemical articles. Reconrabbit 18:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
He created 5,728 articles so far, out of which only 25 have been deleted. Most of these articles are based on elections and politics. I believe granting autopatrolled rights would be a suitable recognition for this work. Baqi:) (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done Most creations are auto-notable politicians and elections which should be easy to review at NPP. Given the past revocation, I don't see enough substantial page creation to offset the concerns or to warrant requiring an auto-patrol flag. Sohom (talk) 07:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I have created over 200 articles, including twenty-nine since I was temporarily granted autopatrolled 90 days ago. Since November 2020, I have been primarily editing on Antigua and Barbuda-related topics. CROIXtalk 00:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Done, I don't quite understand why it was temporary last time. – Joe (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 10 years with over 1000 edits, with 32 live articles primarily focusing on topic elated to asian audio visual and the institute in Bangladesh.
Thank you for considering my request. UzbukUdash (talk) 07:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment): This editor recently violated copyright guidelines in an article that was speedy deleted, and many of their articles have been deleted or moved to draft space. I don’t think AP would be a good fit for this user. GrabUp - Talk 15:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done. AP requires a track record of problem-less articles. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:35, 2 December 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 want to get into the swing of helping out in more ways other than RCP/PCP. Manually editing each article can only do so much. This would be handy to have. Synorem (talk) 06:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you have any specific task in mind for this? * Pppery *it has begun... 21:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Particularly for tasks like fixing broken templates and adding article-improvement templates. Since I frequently go through hundreds of articles a day via Huggle, AWB would help by allowing me to quickly add these templates without having to manually search for them and copy-paste them into each article. A recent issue that comes to mind was dealing with a few instances of {{cn}} spam, as seen here and here. This would help clear up stuff like this. Synorem (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request access to AutoWikiBrowser to assist with minor edits, formatting, and other repetitive tasks. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Reason for requesting confirmed rights
Adding to the pregnancy portion to the cancer page. I have worked on this piece for a whlie and have valid citations and sources. This is for a school project and not an act of vandalism or false information. Prarthanarawal (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done – Hi, and thank you for creating an account to edit Wikipedia. Although I fully understand your desire to dive right in, many of our articles are semi-protected because they are controversial, prone to vandalism, or other reasons. As a new editor with few edits, it might be wise to discuss your edits on the article talkpage in order to gain consensus for your edits, and then use {{Edit semi-protected}} to request the edit be performed. I only recommend this until you are used to the challenges of reliable sources, the biographies of living persons policy, and other similar policies. The good news is that fewer than 5 percent of Wikipedia articles are protected; this means that more than 95 percent of the articles can use your help right now! Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 19:54, 2 December 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 beginning of November my EC permissions have been revoked by User:ScottishFinnishRadish due to what he considered to be gaming, because of me doing a large number of minor edits requested as part of the CW Project.
SFR said that he would not object to the restoration of my EC permissions once I made a few hundred more substantial edits.
Since then I made over 350 edits, mainly on pages related to mathematics and food security, and I believe this should qualify me for restoration of extended-confirmed permissions. DancingOwl (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Done for 30 days. Given that you've technically met the requirement for restoration of the right, I have no reason not to grant it. That said, I've limited it to 30 days, after which it will expire. I believe I'm permitted to impose this restriction since the revocation of the right related to editing in contentious topic areas and our general procedure for contentious topic areas gives Administrators maximum latitude in facilitation of a collaborative editing environment. Prior to expiration of this right, you can return here and request it be permanently added to your account. Chetsford (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I have been editing on Wikipedia for 2 years now and have been making frequent edits, and I wish to be granted Extended Confirmed to be able to work on the 2028 United States presidential election article, which I had benefited to until the restrictions were increased. Vlklng (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done We aren't really empowered to grant this early, and although I can see you've been very active recently, you have less than two hundred article edits, so there's really not any justification for making an exception in your case. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 20:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi. I am User:Stranger43286. This is my main account. "StrangerGaplow" is a backup account. My main account is extended confirmed.
I request the extended confirmed flag StrangerGaplow (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. Verified alternative account here [23]. Mz7 (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the event coordinator flag.
Event coordinator
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
There are no outstanding requests for the mass message sender flag.
Mass message sender
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.
Hello, I'm Memer15151! I've been actively working at Articles for Creation for the past month, and I believe am ready to start reviewing new articles in addition to AfC submissions. I'd love to help reduce the amount of unreviewed new articles. I am confident that I meet the guidelines for becoming a NPR. I have reviewed over 200 AfC submissions, created over 45 articles, and participated in over 20 AfD discussions. My account was created over one and a half years ago, and I have over 3,000 edits.
One time, I did accept some AfC submissions by User:Tatar Russian (who was later confirmed a sockpuppet) that were deemed to be written by AI. I was unaware of this, although I was a bit unsure why the user created drafts so quickly (I assumed they were copied from a doc or something else that they were working on). Although in Cryllic, I was able to locate the books in the drafts, and all of the ones I checked were indeed existing works of literature. I am now aware that many of the sources in one of the drafts that another reviewer accepted consisted of hallucinated sources. I assumed good faith and accepted the drafts. From now on, I will make sure to check all works of literature to make sure they can be accessed online, and if not, get information from the draft's creator. I learned from this experience and I believe I am ready for the new role in the community. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Done, thank you for volunteering. signed, Rosguilltalk 23:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I believe this is the right time to apply for these rights. Over the past year, I have been highly active on Wikipedia. Currently, I am serving as an AFC reviewer, diligently contributing to the review process. In addition, I actively participate in AFD discussions with full commitment. I have a solid understanding of notability guidelines, reliable sources, and the principles related to biographies of living persons. So far, I have created over 90 articles. Baqi:) (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Greetings! I have continued my service of new page patrol, AfC review, and AfD review. I have familiarized myself with all the policies and have improved according to the comments during my trial. I request that my NPP right be made permanent, and you may also comment on what I could've done better. Thank you. Pygos (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Donesigned, Rosguilltalk 23:33, 1 December 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 got Page Mover permissions in late August to help with the post-move cleanup of LGBT->LGBTQ and have since moved several (probably hundreds) uncontroversial subpages to follow it. I got an extension for another two months granted a month and a half ago to finish the cleanup and voiced my interest in helping with other unrelated moves as well. I started clerking at RM and RMTR for the past two months without issues or challenges to move requests I have acted on, showing that I appear to have a good grasp of our AT policies (and taking this note from SiverLocust as a compliment) and would like to request to keep the Page Mover permissions indefinitely to continue to help with RM and RMTR (and the occasional LGBTQ cleanup as I still stumble across some every now and then). Raladic (talk) 02:52, 1 December 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've read and understood WP:RPC and will proceed slowly at first (that is, leave what I deem edge cases to someone else). JayCubbyTalk 17:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
I want to help new non-autoconfirmed and unregistered editors find their way on Wikipedia. I figured this role is the best and easiest way to do that. Also, just to let you know: I applied for this position back when I had 30 edits but I have around 70 edits now. WikiEditor5678910 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done You were asked to make a few hundred constructive edits to mainspace, and wait a few months before requesting again. You haven't done that. * Pppery *it has begun... 05:08, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
I regularly check a variety of pages for editing issues and help fight vandalism. I also watch several pages, some of which have pending changes protection. I believe this would further help me fight vandalism. I’ve read and understand the guidelines for reviewing pending changes and am familiar with Wikipedia’s policies. Thanks for considering my request. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 01:24, 29 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.
Requesting rollback permission to combat the pervasive presence of vandalism and/or edits of unencyclopedic quality to the best of my ability. At the present moment I am a semi-retired user; however, I have been a regular patroller of recent changes to both specific pages as well as the site as a whole. I'd very much like to learn the counter-vandalism tool RedWarn and/or Ultraviolet and get involved to a greater extent across the site in keeping pages up to editors' standards - I intend to be a long-term contributor to the site and expect to be much more active in the future, predominantly in this line of work. I've familiarized myself with WP:VANDTYPES and have encountered and attempted thus far to manually revert instances of controversial edits at times - edits which it would be far more helpful to all parties to take care of via rollback. I'd particularly like to delve into new ways to spot the more subtle instances that go unnoticed for longer periods of time, per WP:SNEAKY, as well as monitor for violations of WP:TPV and continually make an effort to practice WP:WARNVAND, WP:HTSV, WP:NOTVANDALISM, WP:RVAN and WP:NORESVAND among others. My most notable effort to prevent escalated conflict(s) would be in the Talk:Wings_of_Fire_(novel_series)#February_2023_Content_Editing_Conflict, though I do not yet have a track record of notifying users when reverting their edits beyond discussions on article talk pages (though this is typically as the reverted editor has tended to initiate the conversations first). Furthermore, I intend to prioritize diligently monitoring sockfarm-targeted pages in addition watching out for recent changes. Please let me know if you'd like me to undergo training and/or further regulatory practice first - and thank you for your consideration of me for this responsibility. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
I see, I see; thanks for letting me know. Would I still be allowed to request rollback rights for the sake of utilizing these anti-vandalism tools to the utmost, or would you prefer I use RedWarn/Ultraviolet before making such a request (or, rather, the rollback-required AntiVandal)? In either instance I would still like to request the option of using rollback in the case of rollback-preferred cases of vandalism, which is - again - the primary reason I am making this request. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi TheMysteriousShadeheart, I'll grant rollback if you provide a list of five diffs where you have used, in practice, anything else than rollback (RedWarn, Ultraviolet, manual undo or whatever) and could have used the more performant, simple server-side rollback instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
(see WP:ROLLBACKUSE for the limitations of what these five diffs may be about) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
A sample of twenty-five (25) instances of manual undo are as follows (as the first method I learned, I have used it most frequently):
On that note, the following edit - where I addressed WP:TALKOFFTOPIC - is one of my outlying contributions which clearly would constitutionally not require rollback; rather, page clean-up is a better solution:
The majority of my editing history has been through correcting overlooked errors/mistakes of minor significance on pages (ex. punctuation; spelling; spacing; formatting; cross-linking; broken citations; etc.).
Please note that edit discussions, when necessary, took place on page talk pages rather than user talk pages; I do not believe I have ever issued a talk page warning as other users typically did so before myself (though I am fully familiar with what is required/expected of in the practice).
Keeping in mind the limitations and responsibilities of WP:ROLLBACKUSE, I again thank you for your consideration of me for this privilege and power. ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
[Comment: Considering the differences between RedWarn, Ultraviolet, AntiVandal and other such anti-vandal tools, I'd gladly accept pointers/suggestions as to which would be believed the best course of action to pursue should I be granted the opportunity to use rollback. Please let me know if you have any other questions, comments or concerns.] TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
TheMysteriousShadeheart, thanks, hm. I didn't have a look at all examples, but the first 5 don't really look like the kind of obvious vandalism that can be rollbacked without an edit summary explaining the revert. I'm looking for five (but really just five) diffs where you undid obvious malicious editing, not someone's editing tests, not someone mistaking a talk page for a forum without wanting to harm the project. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
The list of dragon names removed in Special:Diff/1252791870 doesn't look like vandalism; same for Special:Diff/1222922750, where additionally the unnecessary changing of a phrasing was surely not meant to cause damage. I'll decline this request for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Understood - thanks for your consideration. I'll get more practice combating vandalism first; hopefully my editing slate will be more up to grade in the future! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Thanks – do feel free to ask again, perhaps in a month or so, simply on my talk page or here; if you choose this page here, please let me know and I'll either grant the request or leave the decision to someone else. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm reapplying for rollback rights to continue supporting anti-vandalism efforts on Wikipedia after a misunderstanding that led to a false blocking and false accusations of violating WP:NOSHARE. I am committed to maintaining the integrity of articles and have prior experience using tools like Twinkle and Ultraviolet to tag and revert edits involving unnecessary soures or clear vandalism, often from IP address and new users.
Having rollback rights would allow me to contribute more effectively by streamlining the process of reverting disruptive edits and vandalism. I understand the responsibility that comes with this permission and I am fully prepared to take accountability for any incorrect reverts. I will be greater caution moving
forward and use any mistakes as learning opportunities. RoyiswariiiTalk! 06:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
I am here to reapply for Rollback permission. I used to be pretty active when it came to patrolling Recent Changes but due to some password mismanagement I accidentally got locked out my own account. I was previously rejected by User:Fastily (I wish them a happy retirement) who told me to be active in Recent changes for a month or so more before requesting rollback permissions again. It hasn't been exactly a month but I think I have done enough to prove that I won't use rollback perms to vandalise or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia. I'm requesting rollback perms to use tools like AntiVandal or Huggle and have thoroughly read Wikipedia:Rollback policy. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 10:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
My next logical request for permission, one that I don't suppose I can utilize alongside Ultraviolet to stop the bad faith one-timers and vandals where I watch. Although, I must admit, I should simultaneously take care to not get into any content dispute I see; I'll do my best not to get into one this way. Thanks for considering (again). 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 01:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
P.S.: as a sure guarantee my use of rollback is done safely and without causing any significant issue, I'll use Mr. Stradivarius' ConfirmRollback. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 01:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like rollback permissions to make fighting vandalism quicker and easier. I have been reverting vandalism for over 1 month and have experience with tools such as Twinkle and Ultraviolet. I would also like to be able to have access to Huggle to make my anti-vandalism experience easier. MouseCursor (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to be able to access rollback tools to fight vandalism more effectively, I am familiar with Wikipedia's rules. SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
Dealing with a lot of vandalism lately. Undoing, warning and reporting. Hope that undoing could be made easier with Rollback rights. YBSOne (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
This is not 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 this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at Waters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calmer Waters.