15:0715:07, 20 November 2024Sheikh Sajjad Ali (hist | edit) [3,284 bytes]DelwarHossain(talk | contribs)(←Created page with ''''Sheikh Md. Sajjad Ali''' is an officer of the Bangladesh Police.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2024-11-20|language=en|title=Sheikh Sajjat Ali appointed as DMP Commissioner|url=https://www.ntvbd.com/bangladesh/news-1481281|access-date=2024-11-20|website=NTV Online}}</ref> ==Refrences==')
15:0215:02, 20 November 20242020 sculpture controversy in Bangladesh (hist | edit) [7,861 bytes]CosmLearner(talk | contribs)(←Created page with 'The 2020 Bangladesh sculpture controversy refers to a series of ongoing political events focused on the religious opposition provided by the Islamist organization Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh against the creation of the sculpture of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, considered the founding father of Bangladesh and the central ideological figure of the then ruling Awami League.<ref>{{Cite news |script-title=bn:ভাস্কর্য বিতর্ক: অবস্থ...')Tag: Visual edit
14:3014:30, 20 November 2024Entry of Henry IV into Paris (hist | edit) [2,617 bytes]Lord Cornwallis(talk | contribs)(←Created page with '{{For|the Rubens painting|The Triumphal Entry of Henry IV into Paris}} {{Short description|Painting by François Gérard}} {{Infobox artwork | image_file=File:Entrée de HENRI IV dans Paris le 22 mars 1594.jpg | image_size=250px | title= Entry of Henry IV into Paris | artist= François Gérard | year= 1817 | type=Oil on canvas, history painting | height_metric=510 | width_metric= 958 | height_imperial= | width_imperial= | metric_...')
14:2814:28, 20 November 2024Ropuiliani (hist | edit) [8,371 bytes]Jokomarel(talk | contribs)(←Created page with '{{Infobox royalty | name = Ropuiliani | image = | title = Chieftess of Denlung<br />{{lang|lus|Denlung Lalnu}} | caption = | succession = | reign = 1889–8 August 1893 | coronation = | cor-type = | predecessor = Vandula | regent = | reg-type = | successor = | suc-type = | birth_name = | birth_date = 1828 | birth_place = Denlung chiefdom | death_date = {{death date and age|1895...')Tag: Disambiguation links added
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: Six months of semi protection 76.71.63.110 (talk) 12:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The IP has been requesting the protection of an article in a convoluted way by repeatedly adding the section of a list of notable anime titles to the parent company that does not really own the distribution rights or that in my opinion has confused the studio by crediting itself under the Crunchyroll brand name, sockpuppet of Silence of Lambs.
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – Persistent, on-going disruptive editing by anonymous editors over long term period of time on BLP article. livelikemusic(TALK!) 21:57, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing – The article was edited disruptively by a user who removed source content and references and added spam text without discussion or consensus on the talk page. Aryan 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Previously protected three times and repeatedly vandalised after protection ended every time. Requesting a longer term protection. ser! 10:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Move protection: Page-move vandalism – page move war in progress. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
This should not have been moved from JTG Daugherty Racing in the first place. Request that the move protection happen after this undiscussed change is reverted. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection:BLP policy violations – Consistent uncited additions and/or changes to Lopez-Alt's relationship status have been made for the past few months, and seem to be persisting. Cerebral726(talk) 13:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Semi-protection for at least a few months. Expect vandalism to be rife with the release of the eponymous Netflix miniseries, and renewed scrutiny of the subject's personal life. Mb2437 (talk) 14:45, 20 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.
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)
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)
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.
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” and stated that “our piece has been greatly misquoted and misinterpreted.”
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.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.Dieknon (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Change ROB in it to joee GAMERBOY102 (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done – Assuming that you refer to "ROB-in-it BY-dən" in the lead, it explains the pronunciation of Biden's middle and last names, the first name being obvious. Favonian (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Add the short film 'lily' at the filmography section. He has written this short film. This short film is based on his own short story 'Here There Be Tygers.' 191.246.181.168 (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done – Please use an edit request to request specific changes to be made to the protected page, but remember to include reliable sources supporting your claim. Talk:Stephen King is not protected. Favonian (talk) 12:15, 20 November 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"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 08:23, 20 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.
Hey, I am here again with another editor who has created 86 articles, including BLPs. One of their creations was taken to AfD but resulted in a keep. I reviewed some of their articles and found that adding them to the AP could be beneficial. Basic checks were done, and no major issues were found. It’s up to you, and thanks! GrabUp - Talk 18:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Tough one. Their articles seem mostly fine, but there have been recent issues with minor copyvios (e.g. Draft:Joseph Thornton Tweddle), statements failing verification (User_talk:Jannatulbaqi/Archive_11#Improper_articles), some draftifications (though I think many of these were unfair). They do seem to be responsive to feedback though so let's say Not done for now but we could revisit in 6-12 months. – Joe (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
First of all, thank you, Joe. As you mentioned, I had a minor copyvio issue, which I fully acknowledge. It was my mistake. However, several months have passed since then, and I have made significant improvements in my approach. I have carefully studied Wikipedia's policies and have followed them strictly while editing and creating articles.
Regarding the article you mentioned, which was draftified by 'Maliner,' I feel that this was unfair to me. The article had already been reviewed by an experienced page reviewer.
I humbly request that you give me another chance. I assure you that I will not disappoint you. Thank you very much for reconsidering my request. Baqi:) (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done You would need to make an edit from that account to prove the connection at the very minimum. And in any event, Wikipedia's standards for what articles are acceptable have tightened considerably since 2012. And on one of the two articles you created with this account you added a copyvio that had to be revdelled. So I think it's still best for new page reviewers to review your creations for now. * Pppery *it has begun... 03:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
After creating over 200 articles, I believe that I understand the policies of notability and BLPs. With that in mind, people having to review my article creations unnecessarily increases the work load for page reviewers. ―Panamitsu(talk) 04:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
You write fine articles indeed. DoneSchwede66 08:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
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 ([18]). — MusikBot 13:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag.
Confirmed
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.
Please, I would like to request Page Mover rights to help maintain and organize Wikipedia's namespace. I have been actively contributing to the encyclopedia almost a year and have demonstrated a clear understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Thank you for considering my request. I love y'all. 2RDD (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for page mover declined in the past 90 days ([19]). — MusikBot 10:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done, still fails minimum requirements. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@Primefac: Pls, what are the main minimum requirements. Guide my please. 2RDD (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
As it says in the box at the top of this section: See Wikipedia:Page mover for the granting guidelines. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
@2RDD: At least 3,000 total edits, 6 months tenure, experience with moving pages appropriately, no blocks in the past six months, and a demonstrated need. JJPMaster (she/they) 16:54, 18 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 ([20]). — MusikBot 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 ([21]). — MusikBot 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. — MusikBot 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 ([22]). — MusikBot 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)
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)
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 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)
Just took another look at your recent contributions and I'm still seeing instances where you are reverting edits and failing to notify the editor: 1, 2, 3. Didn't you just promise that you would be more diligent about this? -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize for these mistakes. However, I didn't mean to make such errors; in essence, the internet is quite slow where I reside, which is in a hilly area. I accidentally lost my internet connection, which resulted in these two reverts for the edit warnings I neglected to leave. I came here to reapply for rollback rights after attempting to adhere to the RC log and maintaining a clean record with the goal of leaving edit warnings for every update I reverted for non-constructive edits. I sincerely apologize for these errors. Please review my recent history of RC reverts and reconsider my request for the rollback right. ®asteemTalk 21:39, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
If that's the case, could you please slow down and double check that you have actually left warnings? I'm finding examples as recently as today where you failed to notify the editor (e.g. 1, 2, 3). Also I see that you were just warned for edit warring. Would you care to comment on that? Courtesy ping for @NXcrypto. -Fastily 03:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I assume Rasteem is on a verge of getting topic banned for his aggressive and frequent edit warring especially on caste topics. I really don't think he can be trusted with any advanced permissions at all. NxcryptoMessage 04:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
On Political marriages in India[25] User: NXcrypto made 2 reverts for the same content within 5 hours (Time 12:13 to 17:31)[26][27] I made only one revert.[28] For such a revert, I made on "Political marriages in India". NXcrypto gave me an edit warning at (12:15, 15 November 2024).[29] Instead of engaging in any edit war, I left a note on Talk:Political marriages in India[30] regarding the concern of removal of a revision. Contrary to the other user's actions, which constituted a 2RR violation, my own edits were compliant with Wikipedia's 2revert Rule.[31]
User received a warning notice from admin Bishonen[37]
He was warned about the improper user of warning and blocking templates by Remsense[38]
He also received edit warning notices from other editors for the conduct of edit wars.[39][40][41][42][43][44]®asteemTalk 19:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@Rasteem There is no such thing as "2RR violation" and do not poison the well against editors who oppose your request for rollback. You clearly did not make a "single" revert as you claimed, but the chain of edits you made were all just reverting the previous edits by Ratnahastin. [45][46][47] The fact that you do not even understand what counts as a "revert" and WP:BRD cycle is an enough proof that you should not be given an advanced permission whose sole purpose is to revert. @Fastily: As someone who has dealt with this user's aggressive edit warring, WP:CIR, WP:IDHT , battleground mentality issues before which are visible even in the reply above. I'm firmly opposed to granting any advanced permission to him. I have no doubt that this user will abuse the rollback right, if granted in his typical over-zealous edit warring like he did before[48][49][50][51], in spite of my warning which he called retaliatory despite me never even interacting with him before. NxcryptoMessage 02:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
I've reviewed the diffs and from what I can see there does indeed seem to be some edit warring going on over here. Rasteem, please take a moment to re-review WP:EW & WP:3RR; I'd like to see first establish a track record of constructive contributions before reapplying for rollback. As such, closing as Not done. Thanks, Fastily 09:31, 18 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)
Reason for requesting rollback rights Lemonademan22 (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
I request this tool to counter vandalism, which I am seeing constantly especially on the articles I edit. I am a very active user and are already reverting edits and warning users of unsourced material or cases of WP:ORLemonademan22 (talk) 15:43, 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)
I respectfully disagree. I think I do a lot of anti-vandalism work, albeit casually, on Professional wrestling articles. Here are some anti-vandalism contributions I have made this month alone: [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] I hope you can look at these and reconsider. If not, I will take your advice on board and I will start warning users when I revert their edits. Lemonademan22 (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but that's simply not enough activity for me to determine whether you'll be able to use rollback appropriately. For context, seasoned anti-vandalism patrollers routinely perform dozens of reverts a day. Like I said above, I'd like to see you get some more experience before reapplying, thanks. -Fastily 09:31, 18 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 [66]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:28, 20 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)
