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.
This username matched "Used x instead of cks attempting to skip filter: fu*c+k. Violating string: reddasfcksk" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 16:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
This username matched "Used z instead of s attempting to skip filter: suck. Violating string: apsuckeman" on the blacklist. -- DQB (owner / report) 19:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
They are not adding any links to anything with that name, and they are just adding suitable photos from commons to articles. The name could be that of a tourist agency, but I don't see anything wrong with their editing at first glance. Secretlondon (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
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: High level of vandalism. Page was protected from October 28 until November 1, but vandalism started again after protection lapsed. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of a week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Will also leave CTOPS notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Most edits by new editors or IPs need to be reverted (they don't like the section about his presumed homosexuality, which has good sourcing). Has been going on since September, at least 8 reverts so far. Fram (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Very hot-topic article about a squirrel which somehow has become an American political issue. Lots of back and forth edits going on and being reverted, fighting over whether the squirrel was "euthanised" or "murdered", people adding links to the squirrel's owner's onlyfans (which I think must be a new sentence).
As such I think semi-protection till at least a week after the election wojld be best. CoconutOctopustalk 19:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Consider the edit warring noticeboard – This is a case of possible edit-warring by one or two users. The two editors most visibly arguing about whether euthanasia is a motive or a method are both extended-confirmed; it would take full protection to stop them and, of course, that would stop everyone else and I am loathe to do that with an article about a current contentious news story. But maybe ANEW would see this differently. Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of three weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Also left CTOPS and MOS-NB notice on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from IPs and newly registered users. My Pants Metal (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of three months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Sudden wave of IP's trying to vandalize a particular passage of the article. MrOllie (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of one week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite move protection: Page-move vandalism – Upgrade page move protection to Extended Confirmed. Page was subject to move vandalism and it is unlikely a different title would be valid. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 02:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Seconded, the current semi protection was obviously insufficient to prevent the latest blanking and page move vandalism, so the page protection should be raised to ECP per WP:AMPOL and logged in the CTOPS logs. Raladic (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Already protected by administrator Johnuniq. The move protection, at least. Daniel Case (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Both edit and move protection due to recent disruptive page moving, as well as IP edit-warring from multiple addresses regarding the name of the station. The name of the station is indeed planned to be changed from "Aviation/LAX station" to "Aviation/Imperial station", but this is contingent upon the opening of LAX/Metro Transit Center station a few miles away. There has been some confusion with the station's name as of late, especially with automated train announcements and Metro staff announcing "Aviation/Imperial station" as the name. Thereby, any changes to the name of the station prior to the opening of LAX/Metro Transit Center station, according to the latest source provided, will be sometime next year, are all premature. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined The user hasn't edited since they got a warning on their talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 03:34, 5 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.
Unprotect: The talk page was recently semi-protected due to unregistered users using the talk page as WP:FORUM on Mohammed Deif's death. At the time, his death was in dispute. Now that his death is no longer in dispute, and the article shows him as dead, I don't think the talk page needs to be semi-protected any more. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 05:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Update: the death is still in dispute. Hamas has disputed the report that it has acknowledged the death. For now, it seems that the consensus is to have the article show that he is dead, and note the dispute. Since the WP:FORUM comments were from the side that wanted to have the article show Deif as dead, I don't expect this activity to resume. I also don't expect it to now come from the other side.
Please note that semi-protecting the talk page means that non-confirmed editors cannot make edit requests. This means that protection on talk pages should be applied only under the most extreme circumstances. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
So do we want to lift the protection or not? Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 5 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)
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)
Stated Israeli tank losses in casualty and losses infobox are incorrect, attributed article from Business Insider states "The IDF again had problems with anti-tank missiles during the 2006 war in Lebanon, when Hezbollah employed Russian-made Kornets. Though about 50 Merkavas were damaged, only five were destroyed, according to the IDF, which also struggled with poorly maintained vehicles and ill-trained crews." Casualties and losses box states this number as if it was from current conflict. Article does, however, state that "Israel has lost nearly two dozen tanks during fighting with Hamas since October 7." I believe losses of tanks in the infobox should be fixed to reflect this. 155.225.2.98 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Protected by Mifter on 2017-03-25: "Considering the main page was unprotected by a compromised sysop semi recently, perhaps transcluding it to a cascade protected page will provide a small increase in protection"
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
(Non-administrator comment) Though all the articles they have created cover notable subjects, almost all of them are missing a talk page, which are then created by NPPs. Some older articles are missing default sort, DMY formatting and very short articles do not need multiple sections; rather, they should be consolidated into a single Life or Career section. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
They have created 545 clean articles, none of which have been deleted. Their creations focus on spider species articles, so I believe their articles no longer need to go through NPP review. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 06:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Hey, I would like to be confirmed as I am engaging in multiple editing already, and would like to further the discussion I have started under the UC Berkeley post. I have been providing edit on the page which has been recognized, but right now the semi-protection posed on the Berkeley wiki has stopped me from editing the post. I've done a few editings with IP address too, without recognizing the need of logging in. Thanks! 1255979u (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done autoconfirmed only takes an account age of four days and ten edits. You are already halfway there at five edits. Dr vulpes(Talk) 03:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the file mover 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.
I'd like to be able to take care of technical requests like the one I just posted [17], instead of having to wait for someone else to do them. I've participated in several move discussions and even closed a few – having this userright would also make it easier to close RMs. As far as I can see, all of my technical requests have been performed, and none of my RM closes have been contested. Toadspike[Talk] 11:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC) Toadspike[Talk] 11:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Done for a three-month trial; feel free to re-request a week or two before it expires. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:32, 4 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 would like to help contribute to the Wikipedia community and help reviews happen quicker. I am passionate about unbiased true information being presented and I think this would be a good privilege for me. BittersweetParadox (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I've been patrolling Recent Changes since August 28, 2024, and I helping to review pending changes. Thanks. Ampil(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 02:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([18]). — MusikBottalk 02:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
The pending changes reviewer will help me improve my ability to combat vandalism on Wikipedia. I have a good understanding of the relevant policies. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Expand my works on Wikipedia.I want to counter vandalism and help Wikipedia by reviewing pending changes fastily and correctly. I have read all guidelines and policy I have also created some articles.Edasf (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I have been patrolling recent changes from the past month and a half. I am familiarized with the policies of vandalism, BLP, NPOV and verifiability. I believe am experienced enough to receive this right and would like to accept pending changes. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I love helping with new edits and making sure they are 100% correct and appropriate! I would love to help even more with this permission. Avishai11 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I am requesting Pending Changes Reviewer rights. I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for over 5 years, with a strong focus on editing and combating vandalism. I am now keen to broaden my role by helping to review newly created articles, ensuring they meet Wikipedia's standards to qualify as stand-alone pages.--— MimsMENTORtalk 17:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC) — MimsMENTORtalk 17:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Being a recent changes patroller for a while, I am already well aware of the content polices concerned with NPOV, NOR, BLPs and CV. I have also been using Twinkle and AntiVandal tools for a while to combat especially vandalism and unsourced changes to articles. I've read about the feature and the guidelines regarding reviewing process. I think my editing history is enough to meet the criteria making me applicable to review the pending changes. MSLQr (talk) 18:32, 3 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've been patrolling Recent Changes since August 28, 2024, I've revert vandailsm and LTAs, I'am over 200 reverts form vandalism, and I'am interested the tools named AntiVandal and SWViewer, so I can patrol more faster. Criteria to make Successful:
✅️ At least 200 mainspace edits.
✅️ At least a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges.
✅️ Wait 1 month your request.
✅️ No recent history of edit warring.
✅️ A track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits. [19]
Automated comment This user has had 2 requests for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([20][21]). — MusikBottalk 02:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make (especially when reverting good faith edits). Are you aware of tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which make this extremely easy? -Fastily 08:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I do for ~99% vandalism reverts, and +210 warns. 2 forgotten reverts and 1 LTA revert. Ampil(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 13:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily Yes, and I try do it also, I warning editors, and sending messages saves form the UV menu. Ampil(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 09:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Toad4707 wasn't locally blocked or g-locked at the time you made the revert. Unless you've got a crystal ball, how could you possibly have known that? Not that it matters anyways, in this situation WP:DENY isn't a valid excuse to skip warnings. Also, I see you've neglected to leave notifications again for these reverts (1, 2) -Fastily 08:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily Yes WP:DENY isn't a valid excuse to skip warnings. 2 forgots, and ~99% warns, also do not bite the newcomers. also reporting SRG, LTAs global locks. Also WP:DENY, LTA reverts. 1st on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing very old revert, dose not warn. 2nd on Talk:Camera, No explanation forgot it. Thanks. Ampil(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 09:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
RC Patrol isn't a race to see who can perform the most reverts. If you're having trouble keeping the quality of your reverts high, then you need to slow down. Also ,1 is not a "very old revert". Why would you think that? -Fastily 09:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily yes, RC Patrol isn't a race to see who can peform most reverts is fast. (1:37 UTC (9:37 PHT) time to 10:00 UTC (18:00 PHT) time), Yes isn't "very old revert" diff, while adding "Hame burger chess burger big Mac whooper", undid edit because vandalism. All my reverts is very high track record. No problem. Thanks. Ampil(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 09:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
To be frank, the responses you've provided above suggest to me that you're still learning how Wikipedia works and would probably benefit from more experience. I don't think you're quite ready for advanced permissions just yet, but please keep up the good work and consider reapplying in a month. Closing as Not done -Fastily 11:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like access to rollback to use Huggle and other tools for more efficient vandalism reverting. I am re-applying after a month since my last request, based on a comment by Fastily. I have gained more than a months experience, a meet the minimum requirements. Thanks! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([22]). — MusikBottalk 11:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I would like to have Rollback access to use Huggle and so I can revert vandalism more easily and efficiently. TheWikipede (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has 35 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBottalk 19:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done Please see the notice at the top of this page; with only 35 edits to the mainspace, I don't think you have the necessary editing experience for advanced permissions. Take a moment to check out CVUA, and if you decide you'd like to get involved, you can enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. Thanks, Fastily 20:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I respectfully request Rollback access to facilitate the use of Huggle, which will allow me to promptly and efficiently revert vandalism. I've been monitoring Recent Changes for the past 2-3 months, reverting disruptive edits.
I'm familiar with some Wikipedia policies, including: Reporting repeated vandals after 4 talk page warnings at WP:AIV, reporting reporting sock puppet accounts at WP:SPI and following the 3-revert rule (WP:3RR). And also I'm familiar with the use of Twinkle. ®asteemTalk 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits. Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make (especially when reverting good faith edits). Are you aware of tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which make this extremely easy? -Fastily 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Fastily, I'm already using Twinkle. I've warned many users for vandalism, but I don't warn new users who have made only one edit, as per "Back Biting" guideline. Instead, I typically warn a user after their second vandalism attempt. But in future I'll consider warning users even after one non-constructive edit. ®asteemTalk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. You need to be leaving notifications (or warnings) for every revert, regardless of how many edits the user has made or whether this is the user's first instance of vandalism. -Fastily 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}} I'll always leave a warning notice on their talk page without digging into their number of edits. ®asteemTalk®asteemTalk 01:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Great, could you please now go do some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will always be notifying all editors when you revert their edits? Also please don't use {{Done}} or {{Not done}} in your replies to me; on this page at least, these are for admin use only. -Fastily 02:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do RC patrol & will always notify users when I revert their changes. I sincerely apologize for using {done} or {not done} previously. ®asteemTalk 03:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I would like rollback right because:
1. I am a Recent Changes Patroller, who knows what is considered vandalism
2. Because when multiple occurrences of vandalism is occuring I have to go 1 by 1 and that can take time to revert all the vandalism.
3. I also just think it would help me fight vandalism in general. Thank you for any consideration. MersmanD (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has 19 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBottalk 01:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done Please see the notice at the top of this page; with only 19 edits to the mainspace, I don't think you have the necessary editing experience for advanced permissions. Take a moment to check out CVUA, and if you decide you'd like to get involved, you can enroll at the Counter Vandalism Academy to learn more. Also this was grossly inappropriate, do not do this again. Fastily 02:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, if you were referring to the edit count, it was all in one space and I was trying to delete a point and accidentally deleted the number and the 100 was merged into the text below, in this case the edit count. Sorry for the edit I made, I will be more careful next time. MersmanD (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I will be more careful with my edits in the future, especially with formatting. MersmanD (talk) 02:52, 3 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 requesting template editor rights so that I can perform template mergers more easily (like the one me and Rjjiii completed over at {{Archive}}) and for moving prep areas to queues at DYK. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:12, 29 October 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.
