This will ensure that I will be able to accept or decline pending edit wishes. ☯SkaterLife☯talk 14:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clerk note: After reviewing this users talk page and 'tribs, the last thing, it seems, that this user needs is more flags. (IMHO) Mlpearc (open channel) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wiseass note - do we have clerks for these pages, now? I hadn't been told. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. User needs significantly more editing experience before getting involved in any meta areas. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
would help keep pages filled with good/true information KDTW Flyer (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done You have just 51 edits and only about a month of experience. I think if you come back in a few weeks with some more article work under your belt, this won't be difficult to get. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would surely help me in contributing and reviewing pending articles. I would like to expend and review articles under WikiProject IndiaCutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I recently declined this request for userright-relevant concerns about ten days ago. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The right was declined as per the discussion which was raised with my some edits in the article Vardhman Mahavir Medical College. One of non-admin mentioned in the discussion that he randomly clicked on above mentioned article and found me ineligible for this right, although that article was not contributed by me nor the content which he mentioned in the discussion under History section. I just tried to expend the article by restructuring and adding logo of the institution. It is my request that please consider my contributions not the comments of the NON-admin, I respect each of them since they are part of Wikipedia. I will happily keep contributing even after my request for reviewer get declined. CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 18:00, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You still haven't understood what the person meant. The person who raised the concern pointed out that you had failed to correct obvious existing errors when improving the article in question. It does not matter whether they were added by you or not. Also, non-admins' comments have the same value as the admins', when their points stand. Admins have the same rights here on Wikipedia - They just have more tools technically. (P.S. I'm not admin) Zhaofeng Li [talk...contribs...] 23:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to learn, is this only the reason and criteria for granting reviewer right, in which a user who wanted to expended the article but failed to notice the History section? I am surprised to see that no one has noticed that content since March 2013 or raised any question about it. Please do not grant me any rights since I am happy with no-rights, if it is the only reason for deciding the rights where the minor to minor edit is considered while good contributions discouraged.CutestPenguin {talk • contribs} 13:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cutest Penguin: I'm sorry if it's discouraging. You edits are good for the encyclopedia and appreciated, and the whole point the user who pointed out your omission have made is to simply show what you have missed, rather than to claim that your contributions are not good (In fact, they are awesome). Everyone makes mistakes. Some comments may seem direct and harsh at the first sight, but most of the time the editors who make them are in good faith. As for reviewing. the ability to notice problematic content is required. Others' failure to notice the obvious error is not an excuse, as the page may have been left unwatched for long (For example, this obvious vandal edit made in 2006 was left unnoticed until recently). So the conclusion is that you need more experience through editing before engaging in more advanced stuff. Thanks again for your contributions and keep up the good work! Zhaofeng Li [talk...contribs...] 15:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. As indicated here, there is nothing wrong with your actual edits. But reviewing involves checking edits submitted by others, and I think it is clear that is not your strong suit. If you get some experience identifying and reverting vandalism that might change, but right now it doesn't seem like you really need this right to keep doing what you are already doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am a very active autoconfirm user who has never encounter any problems in that involved an administrator. I had read the wikipedia guidlines and I reali understood every section of it. During my patrol I often come across many vandalism, but due to the limit of the right I have (as autoconfirm user) I often find it difficult to fix it. Grant me the reviewer right and I plege to use it constructively and productively without vandalism Wikicology (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find things like not understanding basic CSD criteria despite being very active in new page patrol, adopting RHaworth's brusque "kindly have the decency to wait" wording to editors with apparent conflicts of interest, and apparently claiming user rights the user does not have, to be concerning here. All of these are extremely recent; I haven't done a detailed review of contributions so maybe there is more. (RHaworth does great work, but perhaps we only need one editor taking that particular approach to new editors.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Admin RHawort is my mentor, infact this was stated clearly on my user page. That account for the reason why am taken his approch sir.sometimes using “kindly have the decency to wait” when concerned with WP:COI policy violation due to its perilous implication on the integrity of this project. in my WP:POV I think it should be treated with strigency. The WP:User right claim is not recent sir, it was only a test (which I ought to do on my sandbox) then but I forgot to remove it before I left. That was a mistake! If it was intentional as you might think I would've relaim it again but it was not intentional sir. I tag appropiately. Only Olaide Olaogun was rejected. I tag the article because its major contributor has a close connection with it. I took time to check all the references,but none was reliable. Perharps the majoy contributor supplied a false information (Wikicology (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Clerk note: After reviewing this users talk page and 'tribs, the last thing, it seems, that this user needs is more flags. (IMHO) Mlpearc (open channel) 18:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Not done. User needs significantly more editing experience before getting involved in any meta areas. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
