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.
Many of the editors who engaged in the recent edit warring were EC ... upgrading to that level of protection would have no effect on them. If that's what prompted this report, the CTOPS designation allows to impose 1RR instead. Would you prefer that? Daniel Case (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
If the edit warrimg accounts were Extended-Confirmed, then shouldn't the article be Fully Protected so Extended-Confirmed Users can't edit it? 70.50.199.125 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
We only full-protect pages during severe edit wars, and only for a short period of time (like, IME, never longer than a week). 1RR is better when we get to persistent edit warring involving editors at that level. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Declined per the above. I will be adding an indefinite "consensus required" restriction and logging as an AE action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Ip edits aren't helpful at all. Another IP pops up again and it definitely needs to be protected. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 07:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Should get extended protection, as all similar meaningful resolutions on this contentious topic do (e.g. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2720). Risk of vandalism and biased edits is high. CrazyPredictor (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent vandalism from at least two IP addresses over the past week. Appear to be focused on whitewashing the article on behalf of the article subject. Geoff | Who, me? 12:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Large frequency of unsourced BLP changes from various IPs (and a joke-username account: DODJIHEZONJA, meaning "HEZONJA, COME [implied: to our club]"), pertaining to recently emerged rumors of his club change, which appeared in tabloids; see example —Alalch E. 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Hit by the same kind of vandalism as Foggia, carried out by an IP-hopper. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Favonian (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Requesting protection yet again for persistent unsourced changes by IP editors. This page has had temporary protection applied three times in 2024. Can we please get permanent protection this time? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – IPs adding false information. Been reverted by numerous editors over the last week. CNMall41 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection:Arbitration enforcement – Just convicted at trial, leading to disruptive editing. CTOPS for post-1992 US politics. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Seconding this request. I suspect indefinite protection will prove necessary, but I'd take swiftly applied temporary protection over extended inaction. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Reason: Palestinian keffiyeh page has edit protection already, and it appears that vandalism-like and low quality edits are being made to the normal keffiyeh page as well. Reference critiquer (talk) 17:40, 11 June 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.
I would like to request that Nuseirat refugee camp massacre be linked under the 'See also' category in the same way this article is linked in the 'See also' category in the aforementioned article. This will give continuity between the two articles in avoid bias. matt. (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment:@Magmamatt: This request cannot be parsed. Please ensure it follows formatting consistent with the current or previous methods of submission.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 06:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done – That article is currently linked to at the top of 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation#Casualties. According to MOS:NOTSEEALSO: As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.Favonian (talk) 16:53, 11 June 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"
Protected by JPxG on 2024-06-08: "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: Former hoax article that should stay a redirect unless there's a very good reason for it not to be one"
Updated as needed. Last updated: 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Modified by Galobtter on 2019-03-07: "Highly visible template: 30000+ transclusions; while subpages are regularly edited by non-template editors, this does not appear to need so"
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 working on articles related to Tupi–Guarani languages for quite some time now, specifically Old Tupi (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), as well as topics related to the culture of the people who spoke this language (e.g. 1, 2). Despite this editorial interest, I also create articles on a wide variety of topics (e.g. 1, 2), not limiting my contributions to the project. Most of my articles result from research conducted by myself, meaning that, rather than being mere translations from other projects, they constitute original content created through the analysis of various reliable sources, not always in English. Some of my articles have been featured on the main page through the Did You Know section (e.g. 1, 2, 3). I see myself continuing to contribute consistently to Wikipedia in the future, and therefore I would like to obtain autopatrolled rights. I have been a rollbacker for some time now, for what it is worth.
I have created over 120 articles (over 40 since 2023) on various STEM-related subjects, several of them received thanks from others and very few have so far had issues. My focus is on STEM-related biographies, concepts, or entities, with sufficient reference links. All my new articles are in the English Wikipedia, but I also do minor edits on factual information in other languages. I'm requesting autopatroller rights in the English Wikipedia to reduce the workload of other editors in reviewing my articles. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@VaudevillianScientist: Most of your articles look good at first glance, but I'm a bit concerned about Institute for Molecular Science. Can you expand on your thought process for that article? It doesn't have any secondary sources. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up that article I started. I meant to expand it further, but it requires to establish more entries on notable Japanese researchers first, which the English Wikipedia is lacking in. I have just added a couple external references and improved the entry. VaudevillianScientist (talk) 12:31, 11 June 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 have autowikibrowser rights to speed up edits that are too slow when done manually. I work with {{infobox company}} articles and would like to use AWB for speeding up edits that would take way too long to edit manually. WiinterU 00:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't intend to process this request, but I thought I'd help speed it along by asking you to elaborate a bit on what you intend to use it for @WiinterU. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been creating and expanding many articles based on foreign language wikipedia plus English sources. Lots of cleanup for most of the results. Arrorro (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Arrorro, are you doing cleanup on the page you are writing, or the pages that you are coming across? For what type of cleanup are you planning on using AWB? Primefac (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, I am doing sort of a mass China article creation by using Chinese sources and the Chinese, German, Japanese wikipedia articles. My translations are rough and I produce rather a lot of mistakes. If AWB is not appropriate for checking your own work, that's fine. It's just that copyediting can get pretty tough.
p.s. I would be willing to start editing more of the China articles I come across. Some are fairly unedited machine translations, as far as I can tell. Arrorro (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Arrorro: Not really sure how AWB would help with that? I'd suggest checking your articles a bit closer before publishing, or going through and editing them individually. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! Arrorro (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done for lack of need. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I would like to have autowikibrowser permissions to make editing faster to make Wikipedia better. CGP05 (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
and I also want to try to use javascript wikibrowser CGP05 (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
@CGP05: is there any particular type of edit you'd like to make with AWB/JWB? Elli (talk | contribs) 02:35, 11 June 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.
Hi. Could EC rights be granted to my other account, CanonNiAWB? This would make it much easier to clean up extended protected pages. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
We are expecting around 60 - 80 delegates at this event, so having the Events Co-Ordinator rights will help me manage signups during the in-person workshops I am hosting. I am an accrediated Wikimedia UK trainer and have been running and assisting with events since 2023. Octavosaurus (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Done (granted until July 6) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:15, 10 June 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 was a new page reviewer until earlier this month. As my curation log suggests, while this wasn't the focus of my wikiediting, I occasionally dipped into the backlog to review new articles, a fair few of which I draftified or sent to AfD (so they weren't all easy!). I think my reviews were adequately accurate to demonstrate my suitability for the permission, and I'd like to continue helping to reduce the backlog as my wikiediting time allows. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Draft:Belarus–Maldives relations has 21 inline citations for less than 50 characters of prose and two tables, yet you draftified it as "needing more sources". On the creator's talk page you specified that what was missing sources discussing and explaining the international relations between Belarus and the Maldives, not simply side-by-side fact profiles about the countries' basic information. What is the policy basis for excluding an article lacking such sources from mainspace?
Did you not notice that Draft:Recapture of Fort Vaux had previously been moved to mainspace by the creator, and was thus ineligible for draftification per WP:DONTDRAFTIFY#6?
I do appreciate that you took the time to leave specific feedback for the creators of each of these articles, rather than only relying on the script's canned reasons, but I'm worried that you are applying a significantly higher standard to new articles in mainspace than the community expects from new page patrol, and would appreciate it if you could reflect on your approach before any extension of the NPR right. – Joe (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Joe, thanks for taking the time to offer such detailed and thorough feedback. I really appreciate the time and care you took to compile this report.
At the time of my review, User:Russellmorden/Economics of Gold provided little prose not already sufficiently covered in Gold, and as a recent AfC review suggested, it seems implausible that the topic will be better addressed as a standalone article. In my view, the appropriate action for this article would have been not to draftify, but to redirect to Gold. The editor, however, was part of a wikied course, which left me to believe that draftification was the best option so that the editor could continue to work on it for their assignment. Keeping the article in mainspace with an unsourced tag seemed an unsuitable outcome given that the topic is already covered elsewhere on Wikipedia.
The policy basis for draftifying Belarus–Maldives relations is that the article did not present sources demonstrating the topic's notability. Moreover, the article fundamentally did not address the topic suggested by its title, and a direct side-by-side comparison of two arbitrarily-chosen countries seems outside Wikipedia's scope, making a page move unsatisfactory. The best option, in my judgment, was draftification to allow editors time to provide sources demonstrating the topic's notability, which I could not uncover from an online search.
Looking back, this draftification was a mistake. I am sceptical of other-language Wikipedias, and I have previous experience specific to the Spanish-language Wikipedia's much less stringent standards of sourcing. This scepticism probably clouded my judgment, and I admit that an unsourced tag would have been the correct course of action for this article.
You're quite right that this revert was a mistake, and I should have let another reviewer deal with it.
I didn't notice this, and likely assumed that the script would have notified me. The article was indeed ineligible for draftification.
The citations are primary: the article was quite evidently the result of a very bright editor's diligent research into an encounter in the Battle of Verdun. The article made clear that its intention was to promote knowledge and interest in this encounter. While my advice to the editor mostly concerned the tone of the article, I should have emphasised more greatly the final point in my comments, which was that by relying on primary sources, the article did not establish the topic's notability [separate to the battle], which led me to conclude that draftification was the appropriate outcome.
I agree that I have been hasty to draftify articles, and, as you say, hold articles in the new page feed to a higher standard than the process expects. With this in mind, I'd like to withdraw my request until I have matured a little more in my Wikipedia journey. Once again, Joe, I'm very grateful for your feedback, and if you have any further comments on the above, I would be delighted to continue this opportunity to learn and grow. Thank you! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Marking Request withdrawn for the bot. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Trial ends June 16, and backlog drive is nearly over. I am reapplying early since some requests may not be answered after two weeks from now. I would like to review more pages and hopefully clear down the backlog. I have reviewed more than 100 articles so far and only very few were unreviewed. Please consider my reviews and AfDs before processing my application. ToadetteEdit! 18:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBottalk 18:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Experienced editor wanting to contribute to the new page backlog. I was recently granted a trial and did review some pages during that time, but I believe the trial has now expired. Requesting permanent New Page Reviewer permission based on those reviews and my experience in page creations and deletion discussions. PK-WIKI (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@PK-WIKI: As far as I can tell you only reviewed two articles during your last trial. I don't mean to be rude—every review helps—but how do you expect us to make a judgement based on that? I can grant you a third trial, but are you honestly going to use it? – Joe (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
A third trial would be appreciated. Part of the problem is that I apply for the permission, wait X days for it to be approved, don't notice it's approved as I'm busy doing other things. Then the moment I wanted to review has now passed and the trial eventually expires. I will hopefully do enough to have it set permanently this time... PK-WIKI (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Done for a further three month trial. – Joe (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I've been going through the new pages feed for a while now without the right, to clean up new pages and nominate for CSD those pages that fall under the criteria, (at least 50 by now, weird how the log is a red link) and I've also participated in AfD and other deletion venues as well. The reviewer right should help when going through the new pages feed as I have been doing to better help misguided editors and to more efficiently go through new articles, and of course reduce the almost 10000-tall backlog that still wasn't gotten rid of in the May backlog drive. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Your CSD and PROD logs are red because you have to opt-in to them in your Twinkle preferences. It'd be helpful if you did this because then we can see what proportion of your nominations are acted on. However, I can see from your deleted contributions log that you are an active CSD nominator, so no problems there.
On the other hand, you don't have a lot of experience with AfD, AfC, or page creation. Part of the reason we look for experience in those areas is to see how you interact with other editors, which is a very important part of NPP given that it is often the first or only time new editors interact with the wider community. CSD patrolling is not a good substitute there because it is quite mechanical in nature and doesn't require a lot of communication. And looking at your draftify log I'm afraid I do have some concerns on that score. In particular, I cannot imagine a scenario where it is appropriate to mass draftify four articles by one editor and not leave more than a templated message explaining why. One of these was also not eligible for draftification because it had already been moved into mainspace from a sandbox (plus technically already draftified once, under a different title).
Considered together, thank you for volunteering, but I'm afraid I'm not comfortable granting new page patrolling right now. If you're still interested, I would recommend spending some time at AfC, where you will have the opportunity to show that you can interact positively with new editors and review their work in a encouraging way, then perhaps re-requesting in a few months. You should also make sure you're familiar with the guidance on draftspace in WP:NPPDRAFT and WP:DRAFTIFY. Marking Not done for the bot. – Joe (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointers. About the JCO Global Oncology article, does WP:DRAFTNO#6 really apply if the creator of the article moved into mainspace? If a recently autoconfirmed user creates an obviously needing-draftifying article (in this case it had grammar problems, only referenced itself properly, and had ref numberings [1] without any actual refs for them) but simply moves if from their sandbox to mainspace, does justifiably moving it back out of mainspace constitute "edit warring" as said in DRAFTNO#6? It's not a problem now specifically with that article though as Randykitty significantly cleaned it up, but I feel this should be an IAR excuse.
I also have had a lot of experience with newer editors when CSD patrolling (through deletion contestions and various other discussions) but those of course have been deleted. I'll try to do some AfC work soon. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes it does. Your opinion that an article does not belong in mainspace does not trump the creator's clearly-expressed opinion that it does. Regardless of the state of the article, when two people disagree the next step is to seek a consensus. This isn't just a procedural rule but an important principle across the project and especially at NPP; see WP:NPPCON.
I've been active in the NPP BACKLOG and the NEW PAGE FEED and I noticed that the Backlog keep increasing every single day, I really wish to help reduce it even though I can't do it all, and each time I'm here I promise to dedicate my time to the New page feeds and also stick to the policies. Thanks in advance. 75DD (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done. You do not meet the minimum edit requirements specified in WP:NPPCRITERIA. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay thanks, I'll request when I meet it. 75DD (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Good day admin, I've surpassed the minimum edit and I'm ready to prove me self, I hope to get my first trial. 75DD (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
You don't meet the minimum account age requirement either. Further, having reviewed your edits to date, I'm seeing some recent article creations with {{notability}} tags and no relevant experience at WP:AfD, so I don't think you're ready for this permission. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello there. I am a long standing user with a good handle on guidelines and policy. I have taken part in AFDs, more recently improving articles to standards which resulted in them being kept. Elsewhere I have improved new articles that on first glance do not meet GNG but looking BEFORE I have found sources for improvement. So I think I am fair with new content. I also create many new articles, which are now automatically accepted but not everyone has this luxury. I recently became aware of this backlog and I would like to help. Rainthe 1 21:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Done for two months as a trial run, after which you may reapply. signed, Rosguilltalk 17:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I’ve been an editor for 2 years and I’ve worked on different articles and have also been able to review some articles, I will love to be granted this right so I can reduce back logs and make things easier for other reviewers, can I be granted one month trial? Madeforall1 (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBottalk 00:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done. @Madeforall1: Your previous request was declined 7 days ago. You have not improved based on the recommendations that were given at your last request and you've quickly resubmitted a request. I also was not improved with this interaction either. I appreciate your ambition, but there's work to be done and improvements to be made being re-applying. Please try to wait at least 3 months before re-submitting a request. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much Madeforall1 (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Was granted a 2 month trial which expires on the 26th of June, hope I'm not jumping the gun by submitting this now (but I'm liable to forget and be surprised later). Submitted 78 reviews during the recent backlog drive and am enjoying the methodical rhythm of AFD + NPP. Would like permanent access. BrigadierG (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Hey man im josh (expires 00:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)). — MusikBottalk 00:50, 11 June 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 editing seriously for one year, have 4,300+ edits, I've participated in RMs (including initiating them), and I've never had any behavioral blocks. Zanahary (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done, mainly for lack of demonstrated need (very few RM/TR requests, not many moves). Primefac (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to request the right mostly to avoid leaving R2 pages behind when draftifying (User:Chaotic Enby/Draftify log), although I've also participated in some RMs and RM/TRs. Thanks! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:04, 7 June 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 created many biographies and have a good understanding of Wikipedia policies. I've fixed vandalism many times and fixed many biography of living persons violations. RowanJ LP (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting for pending changes reviewer rights so that I can review pending changes. Ritwik Mahatat@lk 15:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done This user right has a specific purpose and neither this request nor your editng history suggest that you understand what that purpose is and need this user right. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I have been editing for around 2.5 years now, with specialised focus on field of entertainment. I also often correct typos or do general fixes on articles of various subjects. I have a good knowledge of wikipedia policies and would like to get this pending changes reviewer rights to broaden by experience and get more expertise of Wikipedia. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I have made some very high quality articles (Aston Martin DB9 FA and Aston Martin Rapide at FAC) so I am very familiar with what content is reliable and what is not. I have reverted vandalism (in fact, reverting vandalism was the first edit I made) and whenever i seen vandalism, I take extreme pride in reverting it. Best 750h+ 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello User:750h+ . Nice seeing you here! From a quick look at your contributions, it seems like you usually don't leave a warning when reverting vandalism nor an semi-automated edit summary. It's very easy to do with tools like WP:Twinkle. Could you start warning editors? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh, nice to see you here to. :) Noted. 750h+ 12:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I have watched listed several article that have been protected as "pending changes" such as Charizard and Woody (Toy Story) and I would love to have an option to accept their edits if its constructive. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I think I have a decent understanding of Wikipedia's policies. I've monitored recent changes and have mostly reverted vandalism whenever I see it, trying my best to always warn them. I think that being a pending changes reviewer will help me continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia. GoldRomean (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I have been registered for some time now and have recently gotten into more regular editing and monitoring of recent changes and pages that come up in publicity or news to check for currency and any wayward or malicious edits or mistakes. I have a good understanding (and am always learning and improving) of the basic and relevant policies for pending changes reviewer permission. I'd love to help make Wikipedia a better place for everyone by supporting pending reviews! Whisky and more (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done. It looks like you've undone 9 edits based on your edit history. That's a good start, but I think you should get more experience before re-applying for pending changes reviewer. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I am already a rollbacker. I am interested in PCR permissions because I am interested in working at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, which is pending-changes protected. I want to approve and deny pending edits as necessary so that they can then be posted on the page. Air on White (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I participate routinely on both AFD and AFC, I edit routinely, and I have over 1,300 edits. I reverted some edits in my user history. TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I am requesting Pending Changes Reviewer rights to assist in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles. I have been an active editor for almost 3 years, with over 16,000 edits. My contributions reflect a solid understanding of Wikipedia's content policies, including verifiability, neutrality, and no original research. I regularly engage in discussions to improve articles. I am committed to ensuring that pending changes are reviewed promptly and accurately. M S Hassan (talk) 17:25, 11 June 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! I'd like to have rollback rights to revert vandalism quickly. I usually use Twinkle to revert vandalism, but with rollback rights, it will be much faster in the blink of an eye. I've been seeing vandalism occur more frequently for some reason when I look at the "recent changes" logs. I want to help fight off vandalism. It's okay if I don't get it, but I want to have an opportunity to help out. GoodHue291 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done You don't need rollback to undo inappropriate edits. 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 00:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I frequently revert vandalism using twinkle and I would like to have rollback permissions so that I can use antivandal to revert vandalism faster. CGP05 (talk) 00:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([2]). — MusikBottalk 00:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Hi! I guess I would require this for doing certain edits with respect to certain templates, particularly with respect to Indian territories and transport. I have been making edits to templates within the ambit possible, but there are a couple of protected templates which would need additions (E.g. rint updation). So, it will be useful to have this. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 11:48, 2 June 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.
