Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed
Confirmed
User:Psico pp
- Psico pp · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs · block log · rights log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions)
the page "psychology" need absolutely to change! it is a science; there are lot of books about this! it's ridiculous and it does not respect the profession!
discussed with WHO? a random ignorant?.. is very professional from you. If this is the answer, then i can say: "why we don't delete the entire section? why others can decide what to write and then block the edits?"
- I don't know who you would discuss it with, just like I don't know who you are. Anyone who wants to participate in the discussion can. If you were to go in nd make the changes without discussing it at all you would probably be quickly reverted. As far as deletion of the section, you can discuss that on the article's talk page also. Your attitude here just confirms that I made the right decision the first time. GB fan 20:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why? what's my attitude? This is a free encyclopedia, but evidently someone has more power than others. Who are the people on the article's talk page who forbid me to write? do you realize that we are talking about an obviousness??!..Well this is indeed the reliability of wikipedia. Good work!
- (Non-administrator comment)REALITY CHECK: Ok. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with 15,000,000+ editors, 1,500+ administrators and 15+ Bureaucrats. Wikipedia policy as per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES all set rules about how one can and must present information to this site. If it doesn't conform, it is rejected. If it does conform, it is accepted and properly cited as to trace back its source. If it no longer conforms, it is removed or altered with new sources to make sure it conforms. Why don't you auto-confirm yourself and edit the page so you can see how long your information is. BTW, I think I'm smelling a potential legal threat. It is also recommended and required that you sign your posts with ~~~~. Thank You.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 02:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- "BTW, I think I'm smelling a potential legal threat." what do you mean? "Why don't you auto-confirm yourself and edit the page so you can see how long your information is.". Beause i can't! BTW, this is the problem. People that doesn't know what psychology is that decides what it is! fantastic! there are, how many? Milions? milions books that tells psychology is a science; obviously someone here is more informed! in fact, believes that psychology is IO, ES, SUPER IO! great! Ok, doesn't matter. Anyway, i'll try to discuss it on the talk page, maybe is not like i'm saying. let's see. Bye
- (edit conflict)x3 That attitude won't get you very far. Would you like me to help you to auto-confirm yourself. It's simple. Just ten random edits on your user page or talk page and you are auto-confirmed. Simple. That will then allow you to edit the protected page.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 11:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- (non-admin closure){{already done}} You are now auto-confirmed. You may now edit the pages you wish to edit.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 11:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- "BTW, I think I'm smelling a potential legal threat." what do you mean? "Why don't you auto-confirm yourself and edit the page so you can see how long your information is.". Beause i can't! BTW, this is the problem. People that doesn't know what psychology is that decides what it is! fantastic! there are, how many? Milions? milions books that tells psychology is a science; obviously someone here is more informed! in fact, believes that psychology is IO, ES, SUPER IO! great! Ok, doesn't matter. Anyway, i'll try to discuss it on the talk page, maybe is not like i'm saying. let's see. Bye
- (Non-administrator comment)REALITY CHECK: Ok. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with 15,000,000+ editors, 1,500+ administrators and 15+ Bureaucrats. Wikipedia policy as per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:RELIABLE SOURCES all set rules about how one can and must present information to this site. If it doesn't conform, it is rejected. If it does conform, it is accepted and properly cited as to trace back its source. If it no longer conforms, it is removed or altered with new sources to make sure it conforms. Why don't you auto-confirm yourself and edit the page so you can see how long your information is. BTW, I think I'm smelling a potential legal threat. It is also recommended and required that you sign your posts with ~~~~. Thank You.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 02:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why? what's my attitude? This is a free encyclopedia, but evidently someone has more power than others. Who are the people on the article's talk page who forbid me to write? do you realize that we are talking about an obviousness??!..Well this is indeed the reliability of wikipedia. Good work!
- I don't know who you would discuss it with, just like I don't know who you are. Anyone who wants to participate in the discussion can. If you were to go in nd make the changes without discussing it at all you would probably be quickly reverted. As far as deletion of the section, you can discuss that on the article's talk page also. Your attitude here just confirms that I made the right decision the first time. GB fan 20:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
User:ULTRASTAR123
- ULTRASTAR123 · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs · block log · rights log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions)
- I have made a lot of edits (55) and therefore I would like the confirmed userright. ULTRASTAR123| KABOOM! 14:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Question: Is there something you want to do that requires confirmed status? You can currently edit over 95% of the 6,829,554 articles on Wikipedia. GB fan 14:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)In my opinion, this contributed substantially since creating the account. Reverting vandalism and reporting users. I believe this user should be granted confirmed status.—cyberpower (X-Mas Chat)(Contrib.) 15:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Kumi-Taskbot
Kumi-Taskbot · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs · block log · rights log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions)
Does confirmation remove a user's contributions from Special:Contributions/newbies? If so, I think confirming this bot would be a great help for recent changes patrollers. Arctic Night 14:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)