No edits since being warned. Re-report if this user continues vandalising or spamming after sufficient warnings. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Place requests for protection increases at the BOTTOM of this section. If you cannot find your request, check the archive of requests or, failing that, the page history. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: Temporary semi-protection due to Persistent disruptive editing. Including by the ongoing sockpuppets of user:ThiijsStoop and User:QubeChiba 2001:569:5631:2500:194C:B590:9813:5E00 (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry just realized i was not logged in when I created the above request. I am newer editor but have some experience with this page. Grateful to the editor today that caught the disruptive editing. NJNPer (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on 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.
Reason: Indef protection since 2010, the project is very different and I am adding a lot. I would like IP editors to be able to contribute. Protecting admin has since left WP Czarking0 (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.
Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.
Modified by Diannaa on 2014-10-13: "Highly visible template: Transclusion count is only part of the story, as the template is constantly added/removed as work progresses"
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.
Requested this permission ~2 months ago, denied because I was mostly creating auto-notable stubs. I think I have expanded the types of articles I create, including well-sourced local pages or biographical entries where I take time to source subjects that do not inherently meet a generic notability criteria. (I still do create auto-notable pages sometimes, but those no longer make up the majority of pages I create.) As a new page reviewer, I got good experience with the notability guidelines reviewing articles during the backlog drive WP:MAY25, and also participating in AfD. Thought about requesting again as I have run into a few of my own pages while reviewing pages that are in topics I contribute to/am interested in. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Also wanted to mention that if I am unsure of a subject's notability, I will utilize WP:AFC for my own articles occasionally Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBottalk 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
Came here to request this permission for a different user, but since Yoblyblob is referencing their WP:MAY25 NPP work, it is worth noting that among the re-reviews of each patroller's work, 14/17 of their patrol decisions were approved. Of the remainder, two were drafted/redirected as WP:TOOSOON coverage of 2026 state elections and one was drafted for lacking enough coverage to qualify under WP:NEVENT. Considering they were the fifth most active patroller of the drive, this accuracy is good, not great. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I took note of that during the drive. I may have tried to do too much too soon into being granted the permission, but would like to think I take a lot more care now during reviews. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I was granted a two month trial for this. Have created 100+ articles with 10K+ edits and will continue to do so. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment This user was granted temporary autopatrolled rights by Dr vulpes (expires 00:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBottalk 23:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
The sourcing provided here does not appear to meet WP:NORG, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Can you provide sources that establish the notability of this organization? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree some of the sourcing used is WP:CORPTRIV — the foundation has extensive coverage in Korea. I've just added some stronger pieces. The pre/post interview text in this Forbes feature is one with significant secondary coverage. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
{{not done}} NORG requires secondary coverage. Those are all primary news stories. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm okay without the role, or a trial if possible, but can't WP:SECONDARY sources rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them? Tech42Donga demonstrate. I will admit this article is hard to find excellent secondary sources for because there just are so many about the organization. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts: The distinction between primary and secondary sources is sometimes debateable, but by the standards set out in WP:NORG, the news stories seem to fit -- that guideline explicitly says that an NYT article, a blog post and a Forbes profile would be considered secondary, while the text of a court filing would be primary. However, WP:ENDURING may apply regardless. UndercoverClassicistT·C 14:42, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:ENDURING apply to persons and events? This is also a major nonprofit with a decade of history, WP:NONPROFIT applies for this. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 00:58, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
You can put it under WP:SUSTAINED if you prefer: Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. However, sustained coverage is an indicator of notability ... New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION ... reproductions or close paraphrasing of press releases (aka churnalism) does not count as sustained coverage.UndercoverClassicistT·C 08:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
The nonprofit has sustained coverage that is not churnalism, with news stories that you said seem to fit?
Good point RE the alternative criteria for nonprofits. I think this org is probably notable under that standard. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I have created more than 25 non redirect articles within the past few weeks and 53 non redirects overall. The two mainspace ones that have been deleted were by my own request, thanks to a slip of the "Publish changes" button. Aside from those, all have been approved by the adminteam. I would greatly be thankful to receive this permission. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 17:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Why is citypopulation.de a reliable source? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Cites its sources all well and proper, and has a full catalogue of references here. They cite the Tuvalu Central Statistics Division for this matter, which conducts a Population and Housing Census once per decade (most recent one being on 12 Dec. 2022, which is the exact date referenced on the website). Additionally, the whole website is organized by a professor of geoinformatics who is clearly a subject matter expert, Thomas Brinkhoff (this is his profile on ResearchGate and on Google Scholar and on the website of an institute he works for). If I could, I would have cited data directly from the CSD, but they do not make their tables for individual settlements available in their data library, rather just the reports. But, citypopulation.de is far more than close enough. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 08:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
You appear to have translated Ski jumping hills in Gdańsk from pl:Skocznie narciarskie w Gdańsku without providing proper attribution in the edit history. Please repair the attribution issue following the instructions at WP:RIA. Please go through other articles that you have translated from any other wiki and repair the attribution for those as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Of coruse. I've fixed it and two others as well (adding the translated page template on the talk page). I usually attribute translated articles, but I can be forgetful at times. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 18:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. I have created around 30 well-sourced, policy-compliant articles on the English Wikipedia.
In addition to my contributions here, I am an administrator (sysop) on the Persian Wikipedia (fa.wikipedia), where I have been active for many years, focusing on content creation, vandalism control, and community support.
Granting this right would help reduce the workload of new page patrollers, as my article creations usually meet Wikipedia’s quality standards.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Best regards, Shahnamk (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:NONENG, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance". For In the Mesh, did you search for English-language sources? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Also, it appears that you translated the article from fa:چرخدنده (کتاب) without attribution, which is required per Help:Translation#Licensing. Could you please repair the attribution for that article and any others that you translated from fa-wiki without attribution? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. I did rely on Persian-language sources since those were the ones I found most comprehensive at the time. However, I will now re-check for reliable English-language sources. If I find equally good English sources, I will integrate them into the article to ensure compliance with WP:NONENG.
Regarding attribution for translations (e.g., Gear (book)):
Thank you for pointing this out. I should indeed have provided the proper attribution when translating from fa-wiki. I will promptly fix this by adding the required attribution to the article’s talk page (per Help:Translation#Licensing). I will also review my other translated articles and repair the attribution wherever it is missing.
I appreciate your guidance, and I will make sure my future contributions are fully compliant with sourcing and licensing requirements.
Best regards, ShahnamK (Talk) 11:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you again User:voorts for your helpful feedback.
I have now:
1. Attribution fixes: Added the required attribution on the talk page of *Gear (book)* (and will continue to do so for any other articles translated from fa-wiki).
2. Sources: For *In the Mesh*, I reviewed the sources again and included available reliable English-language sources in compliance with WP:NONENG.
3. Future compliance: I will make sure that all future translations contain proper attribution and that, whenever possible, English-language reliable sources are prioritized.
I truly appreciate your careful review and guidance. Hopefully, these corrections demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia’s policies and ensuring that my future article creations reduce, rather than add to, the workload of new page patrollers.
Best regards, ShahnamK (Talk) 11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Shahnamk: you didn't properly attribute. You must add attribution to the page history following the instructions linked to. Also, did you use an LLM to help generate your response to me here? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
As a part of Wikipedia: Tambayan Philippines and the Music Task Force, I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. I have created over 25 articles, most of which are currently live and have been built with careful attention to WP:N, WP:V, and reliable sourcing. And also I understand that the autopatrolled right is meant to ease the workload of new page reviewrs by automatically marking new pages from trusted users as reviewed. Thank you! AdobongPogimasarap 🍛 04:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment: AdobongPogi, your article Popo (film) need to address this. Administrators will flag that and it might affect your request as autopatrolled. But i will Weak Support for this. ROY is WARTalk! (Non-administrator comment) 08:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I've created a large number of My Little Pony and mathematics articles. I have over 6,700 edits and will continue to edit for as long as I can. I'm requesting autopatrol permissions so that the NPP backlog will be less cluttered with my articles. I believe I've demonstrated a solid understanding of the policies and guidelines with my articles, particularly with my coverage of various aspects of the My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic fandom. Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:14, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
I have created more than 25 articles, over several years. I learnt over time to understand the notability criteria well. My new pages do not require attention from patrollers. Only one page I created is marked as deleted (it was recreated under a slightly different name). I have overall over 1000 edits. Thank you for the consideration. Queenofboston (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@Queenofboston: Thank you for your contributions. Spot-checking one of your creations at random, Michelle Meagher, indicated direct copying from a source (report) and non-neutral prose ("Meagher was confronted with a crisis of consciousness", also closely paraphrased from the source). I'll leave a message on your talk page with more information about copyright considerations on Wikipedia, and I would recommend reading about the encyclopedic tone that should be used in articles. For these reasons, I don't think autopatrolled would be appropriate for you at the moment. Please let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69 the article you singled out for copyright issues was published in 2024. The Michelle Meagher Wikipedia entry was created by me in 2023 with the contested phrase in it. So the 2024 article copied the 2023 Wikipedia page not the other way round. I did not infringe any copyright of the 2024 article as it did not exist at the time of the page creation. Queenofboston (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a date on the Green European Journal page, although it was only archived in the Wayback Machine in 2024. Even leaving that aside, though, there remain the issues of neutrality and close paraphrasing.I looked at another one of your creations for more information. Your most recent one, Aline Blankertz, has statements without citations, and doesn't demonstrate the subject's notability — the existing sources are either primary sources, like interviews or podcast appearances, or don't have significant coverage of the subject. However, I will note that I found no copyright-related issues here. I maintain that it would be beneficial for your creations to get a once-over from new pages patrol. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
The information you flagged as missing citation was contained in the sources cited immediately prior, I now double-cite them in the two instances you flagged.
I am not saying that my pages cannot be improved but my pages bring additions to Wikipedia. I focus on women as it is an objective of Wikipedia to re-balance the coverage away from a bias favoring pages of men Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, I believe this is valuable contribution. There are profiles of Aline Blankertz in leading German media outlets, only one source is a podcast and it is produced by an established German media outlet, that is a valid source in my understanding, it is not a podcast produced by the subject. None of the sources in that article are authored by the subject of the article. My pages do not have copyrights issues, as now clarified. I use some sources in foreign languages but it is not the policy of Wikipedia to disregard or downgrade sources that are in foreign languages for purposes of notability. Queenofboston (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Rikap has reliable substantial coverage independent from the subject, for example profile in El Pais, the leading Spanish news outlet, she also published three books. Queenofboston (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The page as I set it up was modified but there is coverage by sources independent from the subject, as in references of the article. I understand that Nai Lee Kalema is not a clear cut case in terms of notability. Queenofboston (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I have created 38 articles in the last year and a half, with 0 deletions. I have brought two of my most recent five creations to GA status. I am very careful to make sure every statement in my creations is properly sourced and I hope to help reduce the workload at NPP. OceanGunfish (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
+1 (Non-administrator comment) Spot-checked. Seems a good candidate. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I have, in my time on Wikipedia, created numerous new articles. I do admit that a decent number of them have been species articles, but I make sure that they are all expanded from a stub if possible. I have waited for a while to request this, and I do think that it is finally time. MallardTV Talk to me! 15:42, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
{{not done}} As you note, you mostly create species articles. Autopatrolled is used to decrease the NPP workload, and species articles are easy to review. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
User:voorts: I don't think this is a policy-based reason to decline a request. NPP is always overburdened, so even a small reduction of effort can be worth it. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I've seen other admins decline on these grounds. NPP even lists species articlds on an easy review page and they're often dealt with quickly. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I've seen it before as an additional reason to soften the 'blow' of a decline, but I don't remember seeing a decline on this ground alone before. I still don't believe there is a reason in policy to decline here (I've not yet checked their creations). If I do check and don't find MallardTV meets the requirements, would you be okay with me granting AP? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Not doneMallardTV. Having had a closer look, I don't think it's quite the time quite yet. I notice that, while I found no uncited text in your last 15 creations, multiple 2025 articles have uncited content: Bremen Tower, Freeman's Mill, Double comparative. Furthermore, when you use non-English sources, it's usually best to add a translated title (not a requirement for AP however, articles don't have to be perfect). I'm quite strict as to close paraphrasing, but I feel you've not paraphrased enough from the original source in Manning Gin Farm (from a public ___domain source??). Keep up the good work with the species articles, and sorry to mess you around. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Femke All good! This is a learning experience and I’m all for it! MallardTV Talk to me! 18:12, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I am requesting autopatrolled rights to decrease NPP backlog. I have created 400+ articles, and have demonstrated knowledge of notability guidelines throughout 3 and a half years editing. I have not edited for about a month, but plan to get back into Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. Masohpotato (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
After a few months break, I have decided to become active on the English Wikipedia once more. In this new period of activity, I look forward to creating new articles of high quality. As a New page patroller myself, I know how much of a backlog there is. Since I have created a considerable amount of clean articles in the past (mostly related to history, geography and entomology), and am hoping to make many more in the future, I am requesting the Autopatrolled right to slightly ease the work of patrollers such as myself. Thank you! UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Apologies, I was not active yesterday due to school-related conditions. I have changed ref 5, which I believe is the source you meant, to the cite journal format, ensuring that I don't make the website, JSTOR, the actual name of the journal. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
At this time I cannot access the webpage due to restrictions on my school laptop, however I do think your skepticism is justified so I have gone ahead and changed the source to the official U.N. website. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Also I have added a citation to the website of the Ambassador of France to Suriname. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I have created 46 pages currently, and in my more recent Wikipedia editing experience have focused largely on creating high quality and well sourced pages on politicians who automatically pass WP:NPOL, as well as having created pages on political parties, figures, and elections that clearly meet other or general notability guidelines. Having this permission would therefore help free up the workload of new page reviewers. Greenleader(2) (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Not done Politicians who pass NPOL are easy to review and don't clog up the backlog much. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The majority of my articles do not pass WP:NPOL, I was just commenting that the bulk of more recent ones do. Also this perception that they are quick to review is simply not true - and some of these articles have taken a while to be reviewed, and I have others that don't automatically pass that have taken much longer to be reviewed. The majority of my articles have not automatically passed WP:NPOL and rely on general notability or other criteria - I find it disappointing that this has not been engaged with. I am a major supporter of women in red, and want to be able to help more with this, and I have frequently contributed to AfD discussions with a strong understanding of the policies and guidelines. If there is any justification for not granting this permission other than simply the fact it is allegedly very quick to review some NPOL pages (in spite of the fact this has not always been true in my experience), I would be grateful for further feedback because otherwise I am extremely unclear on what more I can do to earn autopatrol permissions, even on a trial or temporary basis. Greenleader(2) (talk) 10:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
To clarify I've realised actually due to creating a lot recently, to correct the record a slight majority of my pages created now do fall under WP:NPOL, but there are at least 20 or so that do not. I also have a lot of drafts (not on Wikipedia yet) that do not fall under NPOL either (for various elections, political parties, and Women in Red pages) and I am very well versed on the notability guidelines so would be grateful for a temporary period to have these permissions and alleviate the load on the new page log. If this is not granted, once again I'd be very grateful for feedback and advice in order to understand the main areas for improvement and learning. Greenleader(2) (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
As stated in a similar case above, I don't think this was a policy-based argument to decline. I've looked at 4 articles, and found a problem with two, FUTURO, where some of the text seemed uncited. Which source supports the 13% vote share? Similarly, Else-Merete Ross doesn't contain a citation for the personal life section. I'd be happy to reassess in a couple of months when articles are consistently fully cited. Feel free to ping me. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:31, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for this feedback, really appreciate it, especially as this is my first time going through this process. The referenced sources for Merete-Ross do contain that information so I will ensure the citation formatting fully reflects this, and with FUTURO while the vote and seat result is in the sources, the percentage is only cited and sourced in the linked Wiki election page, so I must have forgotten to add the relevant source on this detail to the FUTURO page too. I will fix these promptly, thank you for drawing my attention to these issues. Very grateful for the advice, I will be even more careful in ensuring everything is consistently fully cited going forwards, and will hopefully have a strong track record to show when I reapply here in the future! Greenleader(2) (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I am returning to request full rights after the three-month trial period expired. During the trial period, I encountered no issues and successfully created many articles to contribute to Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Myanmar. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts Thank you very much for your response. You asked whether the YT reference is reliable. I would say 'yes', because it is a documentary-style storytelling piece from Myanmar Celebrity Media, which is considered Myanmar's largest entertainment media outlet after the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état. Before the coup, they operated a website channel, but now they only operate a YouTube video channel. After the coup, around 90% of entertainment media outlets were shut down, leaving only a few video-based entertainment news sources and other media only focus on the war and political news. I used this video version as a source for Wikipedia because it comes from a verified major media outlet. According to WP:YOUTUBE-EL, "If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher), then a copy of the source on YouTube is still considered reliable." Therefore, I sometimes use YouTube sources when needed. Best regards. Hteiktinhein (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Do they have editorial standards? An "entertainment" outlet is quite different from news media. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts I don't think their current website maintains editorial standards... When I checked, the remaining site did not mention any editor's name and only posted event and celebrity photos with very brief descriptions, without detailed news coverage. It seems the current version of their website is mostly for show and not suitable to use as a source for Wikipedia. If someone used it, sure I will remove. However, on their YouTube channel, they provide more detailed reporting and include the interviewer's name in the hashtags. Therefore, I think their place-documentary programs, where they interview or trace origin with local historians or highly venerated monks, are acceptable to use. Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Since I don't speak/read Burmese, I can't really independently evaluate whether I find the source credible, and I can't really easily research if they had editorial standards in the past. I'll let another admin evaluate your request. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Anyway, thank you very much for your question and concerns @Voorts. I always welcome feedback or comments from senior editors, and I am eager to learn from others. Please correct me if I am wrong. I really do not want to use YouTube as a source; I only turn to it when there is no other choice (Myanmar is now a low-resource media environment, and it is difficult to find website-based reports bcs all gone [2], [3]). My Wiki mentor once told me that YouTube could be used as a source if the channel is verified and has a media license under the Myanmar government. After learning this, I began to cite videos from YouTube only when they came from licensed media.
If media license–holder outlets that report on notable Burmese celebrities are not considered reliable sources, I am happy to agree with that. I have used YouTube sources in only a few of the articles I created (especially on temple or pagoda topics), and if this is still unclear, I am willing to remove or replace them with other references.
I believe MC (Myanmar Celebrity) is one of the most popular celebrity and entertainment news outlets in Myanmar under license, although its website is now low in editorial standards and seems focused mostly on monetization and viewership (some reports on cele may gossip). The second most popular online outlet is Stun Magazine. To give a sense of MC's influence in Myanmar, as Burmese saying goes: “Someone can become a celebrity if Myanmar Celebrity features them.” Thank you again for reviewing my request. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
The issue is that celebrity/gossip outlets tend not to be particularly reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I partly agree. Sometimes they report on celebrity conflicts, which feels more like gossip, but most of their reports are focused on celebrity life and news. They also have multiple programs such as travel, documentary, food reviews, daily life, and program of "forgotten celebrities". Some of these are actually very good reports.
For ordinary lifestyle interviews with celebrities, I don't think those should be used as sources because I know they are not independent. But for other local news reports, I think we can consider using them for Wikipedia. In my view, the reliability of such MC sources should be decided on a case-by-case basis at each article's talk page. How do you think? Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts As of now, MC is a questionable source, and the reliability of that outlet still we cannot be decided. Therefore, removing it is better now, and I have replaced it with another source on Kyaukthittar Pagoda. You can verify again, and if you have any concerns about this, kindly ping me. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts I think I used MC only for this article. I’m checking my temple articles, and if I find any, I will replace them. If you notice any, please ping me. Cheers. Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Voorts I have cleared MC sources from the article. I only found two in my contributions. In the future, I will not use MC since the reliability of that media is not clear at this time. However, if someone else uses it, I think it is best to discuss on the talk page and decide on a case-by-case basis. If you don’t have any further concerns, please review my request again. If there are concerns, I cannot follow up right now...it's already midnight here i now prepare to sleep but I will respond in the morning. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Hteiktinhein: have you used similar gossip/celebrity news sites in any other articles you've written, not just articles about temples. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
No, there are no more. I checked all my articles quickly with XTools and also cleaned the Media Queen source, the same as MC. Now I believe I have removed all celebrity news channel references from my articles. You can check as well, and if I missed anything, please ping me here. @VoortsHteiktinhein (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
This user was discovered through the New Pages Feed. They are an editor who has learned a lot about good practices in creating articles and are consistent in working within the bounds of the notability guideline for species. The only mark against them is that many of these pages are created without a talk page. The vast majority are stubs, but that is to be expected for many of the subject species, and enough information is provided in most cases to allow for identification. -- Reconrabbit 13:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([4]). — MusikBottalk 13:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) User has created over 2k articles, but these articles are short, some are single-sentence, some are double, in a nutshell, they're too short for them to really be able to demonstrate that they could write up a full-fledge article without issues like copy vio or close paraphrasing–which requires an editor to write, say start article, or even stubs that are over 90% rating (10% remaining to become a start-class); this is just my analysis. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Have information about Shadow the Hedgehog’s conception from the anime expo convention held last year. KawaiiMadeline3 (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Already done (automated response): This user already has the "autoconfirmed" user right. — MusikBottalk 18:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I have had this account for many years and also more than 10 edits, but am somehow not confirmed - could this be because I have so far only used it on the German wikipedia? Gammelgul (talk) 11:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Not done. You are correct here - only the account creation time and edit count on the English Wikipedia counts for this. You can see the stats for all your accounts at Special:CentralAuth/Gammelgul which shows your English Wikipedia account was created yesterday. Give it another 72 hours and you shoud become autoconfirmed automatically. stwalkerster (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello I'd like to request confirmed permissions as I am a real and legitimate user but very infrequent and do not make many edits Explorerr7 (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Not done. In general, we do not grant confirmed permissions early to new accounts—your account will become confirmed automatically after it has made 10 edits in total. Mz7 (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I occasionally upload files, and would appreciate being able to remedy any errant titles on my own in the instances that a mis-spelling might occur. I do not intend to make overly-broad use of this right; rather plan to use it sparely to quickly-repair any such necessary issues as they might errantly occur. SecretName101 (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, that's the only one I found. Seeing no correction, Not done per lack of demonstrated need. (As the banner notes, "Successful applicants will usually have a measurable track record of making high quality rename requests".) I'd recommend (since you do otherwise have experience working in the file namespace) requesting after making at least 5 good rename requests. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬) 04:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I fight a lot of SPAM, UPE, and SOCKS which often leads me to move pages to draft space from main space. Having page mover will help me suppress the redirect and save admins time. I am not sure if this will help with accepting drafts which have a redirect title occupying the main space, but I have reviewed over 4,000 page at AfC so it would be helpful with that as well. CNMall41 (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
This would be useful for publishing drafts via round-robin swap rather than {{db-afc-move}} (and for draftification). However, WP:PMCRITERIA#4 isn't satisfied due to a 36hr EW pblock (not for 3RR).
~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬) 17:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
@SilverLocust:, Thanks for the question. I did review and know there was a 3RR in the last six months and won't give my opinion on it other than it was correct on its face. Only block in my 11 years here and I took the last line of PMCRITERIA to mean you have the right to grant it despite, and also have the right to deny even if I met all those requirements. If you would prefer me to wait until that period has ended I can do so. Was just trying to help save others some time. Ether way, thanks for consideration. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
When seeking an exception, you should disclose that you don't meet the guidelines. (That you didn't disclose that, along with your uncertainty that this would help with accepting drafts, made me question whether you had read relevant parts of the page.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬) 18:00, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
You are correct. I should not have assumed that you would assume. Definitely was not hiding anything but I should have pointed it out since it was one of the criteria. That is 100% on me. The question I had about whether or not it would be relevant was to do with moves to the mainspace where a redirect already occupies the title. My understanding is that I would still need an administrator to delete that redirect so I can move. Is that correct? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, I read it a few times and for some reason the wires in my brain are not lining up. I think it would be best to withdraw this request as I do not want a tool that I do not fully understand. For some reason I cannot even get my head around the example you provided. I apologize for wasting your time here. Maybe in the future it will click and I will be back. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
All right. I was still considering the request, depending on Inanvector not expressing objections. Request withdrawn for the bot. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust💬) 05:41, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
And I do appreciate that. I also hope there's no hard feelings for wasting your time. I just had to self-reflect on it a bit and realized I may not understand it as much as I initially thought. Nothing to do with the block. I wasn't happy about the whole circumstance surrounding it, but it is what it is and I would agree that it was a bright line block. I just think that it is better to not have a tool until I fully understand it. I'll likely be back. Cheers! --CNMall41 (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I think I missed the window of usefulness for feedback here but since I was pinged, no I would not have concerns for pagemover regarding the pblock. The article was a clusterfuck, and anyway I don't really see the connection between the userright and an edit warring pblock anyway. I haven't taken the time to understand the IP viewer right (silly thing for a checkuser to say, I know) so I won't comment; it seems to have been separately requested and granted anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Not pinged but will reply about the IP viewer right. My understanding is that it really isn't a special privilege outside of what everyone has now. In September, Wikipedia will start masking IP addresses so the tool will just allow editors to see the IP address that is masked. So...........it basically just allows what everyone is able to do now but will be restricted for those who do not have the new permission starting in September. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2025 (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've been doing recent changes patrolling for a while, and for multiple times I've encountered with constructive pending edits that I couldn't have approved. I believe rights to approve constructive pending edits would help me further contribute the encyclopedia. I'm also eager to use pending changes list to review pending changes. —Krsnaquli || Contact - 16:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Reasons why I am requesting rollback rights: Some registered editors or some IP editors know what they are doing is wrong, but they are still doing it adding wrong information about BLPs, changing names or birth years, months or days from right to wrong, and adding nonsensical contents just to hurt Wikipedia. I am against all of that. I'm requesting rollback rights because I am fighting vandalism and I won't stop not now not ever. The rollback tool will help me fight vandalism with confidence because some editors know what they are doing is 100% wrong (vandalism) but they just keep adding and adding. With the rollback tool rights, I can undo that in the blink of an eye. I understand that rollback is only for obvious vandalism or disruptive edits and not for content disputes. I will make sure I use the tool responsibly in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Thanks in advance. 🐍 Thilio🤖 13:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I have made many mainspace edits and have started using the "Twinkle" feature regularly since my last request about two months ago. Feel more confident in this request. MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([5]). — MusikBottalk 06:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I have read about Wikipedia:Rollback. I have understood many things. There are many vandalism activities that are done every day. I want to fight against vandalism and monitor every movement. I will try to do my best for everything. Thank you JohnDavies9612 (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has had 1 request for rollback declined in the past 90 days ([6]). — MusikBottalk 12:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Will use it for fighting obvious vandalism in the recent changes. My account is old enough and I have made significant amounts of edits, I know the rules and policies of Wikipedia. - Rht bd (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC) Rht bd (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
I have been growing very active on Wikipedia, and it it becoming something of a daily routine for me to view, edit, and create pages. Having the permission to protect pages and rollback vandalism would be awesome for me, as I continue to grow as a Wikipedia editor. I have made over 200 edits, as well as having accumulated more than 200k views on pages i've created/edited. Yours truly, Kenzie! <3 (talk) 15:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Automated comment This user has 88 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBottalk 15:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello! I am requesting rollback rights because a large number of My Little Pony articles that I have created have been getting vandalized by bot accounts lately, and I would like to help fight vandalism as much as I can. Thank you! GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 22:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I previously had this permission but took an extended vacation from Wikipedia. Would like to resume my work! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
