Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Please read Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes before requesting this right. Applicants who are new to Wikipedia will not be granted this right. Administrators will only grant this right to applicants who have a measurable track record of editing.
Ever since I reverted an edit by a vandal by the first time (of course, having in mind that I should be careful and try not bite newcomers), I wanted to contribute more by stopping vandals (without starting an edit war). But over a short amount of time, I became bored by stopping vandals this way, and looked for alternative ways to contribute. Soon, I discovered that one could review pending changes as a way to prevent vandalism. Because of the amount of experience I realized it requires, I decided to take some time to study how Wikipedia works more and edited my user page plenty as another way learn more how Wikipedia works. I know it might seem as if I am out of my mind because of the low amount of edits I have, but I remember reading here that the edit count of a wikipedian is not a reliable way to judge users as it only measures participation and not quality. If I am rejected and thought to be too inexperienced, I will respect that, and return another day (when I am thought to be better) to apply again. ⠀— Glosome 04:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done I'm not someone to play WP:EDITCOUNTIS, and never will be. That said, you need to show that you have the experience though quality of edits, and persistently over time. You only started seriously editing a week ago, and I can't judge if you know the intricacies of the BLP policy and reliable sourcing, nor can I tell how your interactions with new users are. So I definitely need more time, more solid policy driven edits to be able to consider your request. Please also see the basic criteria for becoming a PCR. -- Amanda(aka DQ)05:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on wikipedia now for 2 years but at first it was not easy to understand how to contribute but now having an experience in serving to it, I am working to stop vandalism , making articles neutral, adding pending information as well as appropriate tagging, less on merging if asked or required but editing articles as required. In last two months I have been doing same continuously. I even requested for other rights previously but not having experience was the issue cited by respective administrator but if possible grant me the rights for a period of time. I will work continuously for these issues and afterwards I will ensure by my contributions to get them back. Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have concerns about you not using edit summaries to explain your reverting, when it's not blatant vandalism, especially in this case where you restored a copyright violation. Could you comment on this? -- Amanda(aka DQ)02:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do prefer checking edits by new users hiding probably good ones to welcome New fellows as well as checking big (in size) edits if there are, the page came in my notice there , while checking the history of Page as well as at time of reverting it was unclear about Copyright violations are made.
I hope my reason is well clear. But since than I have been working for really good edits minding no mistake by mistake. I hope and request from you to give me pending changes reviewer rights for a period of time and thereafter on basis of my contributions I will hopefully get them for longer time Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 07:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DeltaQuad: To the concern you raised about copyright violations I have to apologize for that because I said that the copyvio was unclear at the time I reverted edits by new fellow. In edit summary , by chance a few may get skipped or very few minor edits with correcting spelling Errors or ce.That one reverting back i am really feeling like lion in the sea means by mistake doing one mistake which will cost him back.Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
While scrolling through the history it was really unclear of any copyvio , through summaries by two editors who were raising their concerns and reverting back and at the time it didn't seemed like so. But yes that was a mistake. Still I would request you to give the rights. I am also familiar with BLP editing, working to stop advertisement and editing the article properly if tagged or is not neutral and content not acceptable, raising concerns about promotion of person, group or company etc.Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Unclear or not, copyvios need to be treated extremely carefully and it should have been reviewed by an administrator, or you should have sought help at a relevant noticeboard. As for the edit summaries on your reverts, no, they are not always minor. Edits like this need to be explained. -- Amanda(aka DQ)00:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A few months ago, I requested New Page Reviewer rights to see how I enjoyed some of the more "behind the scenes" aspects of Wikipedia. While I have been fine with making sure that inappropriate pages don't get approved, the part that I've really enjoyed is approving an article by a new(ish) user, and occassionally checking back and seeing that they have stayed involved in Wikipedia. In that same vein, I would like to be able to verify pending edits, both to keep inappropriate edits off of Wikipedia, and to approve positive edits. I have improved several articles to GA status and reviewed many as well, and am especially familiar with BLP standards and how to look for copyright violations. Additionally, new page reviewing has taught me the guidelines on notability/vandalism/nonsense. In summary, I think that I could make a positive impact to Wikipedia by reviewing pending changes. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been on Wikipedia for sometime. I have been helping with WP:AFC/Redirects and WP:FFU. Although I hardly come across vandalised edits, I'd like to help out by reviewing pending changes revisions. Sincerely, Masum Reza☎03:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I will try to improve my communication skills. I am thinking about taking a counter vandalism training. How long you want me to wait for reapplying? Sincerely, Masum Reza☎01:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment This user has 41 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 04:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done I'm not someone to play WP:EDITCOUNTIS, and never will be. That said, you need to show that you have the experience though quality of edits, and persistently over time. You only started seriously editing a week ago, and I can't judge if you know the intricacies of the BLP policy and reliable sourcing, nor can I tell how your interactions with new users are. So I definitely need more time, more solid policy driven edits to be able to consider your request. Please also see the basic criteria for becoming a PCR. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Done 3 GAs + NPR is an automatic grant for me. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)