Jump to content

User:Winhunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Winhunter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) joined Wikipedia in 12 April, 2005 and became an administrator on 4 September, 2006.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
EggRoll97 70 24 8 74 Open 15:07, 19 April 2025 3 days, 4 hours no report
LaundryPizza03 67 75 23 47 Open 03:18, 17 April 2025 16 hours no report


Articles I...

[edit]

Created

[edit]

Expanded significantly

[edit]

My other accounts

[edit]

My bookmarks

[edit]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia

[edit]
Category

Category

[edit]
Misc

Misc

[edit]
Tools

Tools

[edit]
Dashboard

User:Xenocidic/dashboard/users User:Xenocidic/dashboard/users

Immediate requests Entries
Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 1
Wikipedians looking for help 0
Requests for unblock 77
Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests 86
Wikipedia extended-confirmed-protected edit requests 65
Wikipedia template-protected edit requests 14
Wikipedia fully protected edit requests 1
Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests 204
Requested RD1 redactions 23
Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 0
Candidates for speedy deletion 22
Open sockpuppet investigations 11
Click here to locate other admin backlogs

Purge the cache of this page

Administrative backlog

[edit]
All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons
Copy to Wikimedia Commons with hidden file revisions
Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review
Requests for unblock
SPI cases awaiting administration
Wikipedia pages tagged for copyright problems
Template:Admin dashboard
Template:Admin dashboard/light
Template:Admin dashboard/light/sandbox
Template:Admin dashboard/uaarfpp
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism
Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
Wikipedia:Closure requests
Wikipedia:Copyright problems
Template:Did you know/Queue
Template:DYK queue/backlog
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
Wikipedia:Requested moves
Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Extended confirmed
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Page mover
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Pending changes reviewer
Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback
Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge

WP:AIV

Reports

[edit]

Bot-reported

[edit]

User-reported

[edit]

CSD / PRODs

[edit]
Candidates for speedy deletion Entries
Attack pages 1
Copyright violations 0
Hoaxes 1
Vandalism 2
User requested 2
Empty articles 0
Nonsense pages 0
Spam pages 4
Importance or significance not asserted 0
Possibly contested candidates 4
Other candidates 12
The following articles and files have been proposed for deletion for around 7 days:
Deletion backlog

This box:
Wikipedia files with unknown source – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files missing permission – No backlog currently
Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale – No backlog currently
Disputed non-free Wikipedia files – No backlog currently
Orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files – No backlog currently
Replaceable non-free use Wikipedia files – No backlog currently

Wikipedia files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons – No backlog currently

Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons – 47 items

Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old needing human review – 115 items

Requested RD1 redactions – 23 items

Proposed deletion – No backlog currently

WP:UAA / WP:RFPP

[edit]
Usernames for administrator attention


Bot-reported

[edit]

User-reported

[edit]
Requests for page protection


Current requests for increase in protection level

[edit]
Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
Shortcuts

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.


President of Tanzania

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, first by IPs and then by a (obviously related) newly-created account. Similar situation persisted at Samia Suluhu Hassan, until the article's current protection. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

President of Namibia

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent disruptive editing, first by IPs and then by a (obviously related) newly-created account. Similar situation persisted at Samia Suluhu Hassan, until the article's current protection. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 17:29, 15 April 2025 (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 17:30, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

COVID-19 lab leak theory

[edit]

Reason: I am requesting 6 months of ECP for Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory, and for Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2. All COVID topics are already considered contentious topics (WP:CT/COVID), and both of these article main pages are already protected by ECP.

The talk pages, however, have suffered under a truly withering barrage of endless requests that we depart from the standard of scientific consensus, and treat the concept of a laboratory leak as highly plausible. In the last two weeks alone, 11,000 words have been written at Talk:Origin of SARS-CoV-2 (33 single-spaced pages in word), with IP addresses and SPAs all asking editors to change the article.

The pattern of discussion in each new talk page topic is the same: an editor with relatively few edits proposes a change to the article emphasizing a potential laboratory leak [1], discussion quickly descends into accusations and fruitless argument [2], and thousands of words are written before the discussion is closed [3]. Then, hours later, another and similarly pointless topic is opened with the same agenda [4].

Editors are complaining of burnout, and you can see why. ECP on the talk pages would not impede article improvement, but would significantly reduce the strain and stress on editors working in this publicly contentious area. -Darouet (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure if this is the right location to post but Tryptofish suggested that any competent administrator can decide to apply ECP to these talk pages given that COVID is already deemed contentious (WP:CT/COVID). Tryptofish your input also welcome. -Darouet (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I actually said uninvolved, rather than competent, and I'm sure y'all are competent. Anyway, my advice came out of the discussion at User talk:Bon courage#These covid pages are exhausting, where it sure sounds to me like those talk pages are, indeed, needlessly exhausting. This is a matter of CTOP, and I hope no one minds that the request ended up here rather than at WP:AE, but it does very much seem to me that it would be a good idea for an admin, acting under CTOP authority, to grant this request. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if protection is the answer as much as not feeding the trolls. The regular editors are under no obligation to answer or engage in these discussions to the extent they seem to be doing. I would also suggest following the lead of many other talk pages of contentious articles and putting a FAQ up top basically saying, we are not discussing this issue here anymore without some change in the facts underlying consensus. Because I think protection here goes beyond the scope of what CTOPS authorizes, and when we have applied ECP to other talk pages (something we do not do lightly).
Now, if ArbCom itself were to specifically authorize this here, that would be different. Daniel Case (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
Tryptofish: right, thanks for the clarification and further explanation!
Daniel Case, my sense is that editors fear that an erroneous "consensus" will form to dismantle these articles if they restrict their involement, so, they remain involved, and as I noted above, the pace and consistency of these continued efforts are withering. The talk pages have also noted that there are calls on social media to recruit people to edit Wikipedia's articles on these topics.
Sadly, and this is my own deficiency, I am wholly incompetent to approach Arbcom: I've been editing Wikipedia for a while and everything about Arbcom - its processes, how to understand its decisions, etc - remain wholly mysterious to me. -Darouet (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that there is nothing going on on these talk pages that rises to the level of disruptive editing sufficient to justify protection IMO. New editors civilly propose information, civilly discuss it with existing editors ... what's disruptive about that? It's how, by our own standards, these things are to be handled. No regular reverting, no profane IP outbursts at Wikipedia or certain editors, no repeated reposting of rejected edit requests ... all things that we have experienced on other CTOPS talk pages that we have protected (save Talk:Taylor Swift, where too many people have arrived from, I suppose, searching on "talk to Taylor Swift" and assumed that that page had a direct connection to her phone).
Yes, there has been a little pushing and shoving, particularly between one five-day-old account (a likely SPA, it seems to me from their POINT-y behavior) and one regular editor on those two pages whose brusque responses aren't helping matters). But that's not enough to justify the bluelock, or even (at this point) a gray one.
Any admin's decision to unilaterally ECP that talk page right now is likely going to be portrayed as some sort of censorship effort ... and you know what? That perception would be legitimate IMO—established editors, generally tending towards sources that support one side of this more than the other (Although I should say the lab-leak article does, to me, fairly represent the point of view that there was a lab leak, which is the most important thing to worry about here), ask that access to the talk page be limited to similarly established editors because they're afraid the article might have to be changed by our own rules, via an unprecedented use of administrative power. How would that not look suspect?
For now I really think the best measure would be to have some sort of FAQ template on the talk pages, listing all the sources proposed for use and why we're not considering them reliable enough to use in the article, so we can just point to that instead of rehashing those reasons in the talk discussion (We might also take more affirmative steps to identify where on social media these coordinated efforts are originating from so that we can more clearly identify them as such when those users get here).
If we want to ask ArbCom if we can do this to repel a possibly offwiki-coordinated sealioning effort, then in addition to any evidence of offwiki activity we would need piles of diffs (or at least links to the sections on the talk pages). My talk page has been freshly archived, so there's space. You can also email me if you think it's better off keeping that confidential. Daniel Case (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
I'd note arbcom specifically declined making ARBECR a remedy admins could impose on a case by case where it doesn't already apply and that would be a lesser page level restriction. Nil Einne (talk) 06:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
1. Discussion is mostly civil, related to an expert survey, German intelligence, the CIA statement, the French press release, and the DIA analysis, in that order. Are editors expecting not to have to discuss these sources?? Consensus building is how this place works...
2. This request for protection has not been mentioned on the talk page--is it going to be? Or is the talk page too problematic to discuss how problematic the talk page is?? SmolBrane (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose A remedy against repetitive request is long well known: keeping archives and referring the newbies to them without long chat. One can even partially violate a no-edit rule for archive by allowing anchors to perennial topics. Another way is Q&A page. If the IP persists despite the 'rtfm' advise, simply do not engage, because consensus is already established. --Altenmann >talk 03:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Declined I agree with the opinions above that: 1) the disruption doesn't rise to the level where protection of a talk-page would be considered necessary, 2) the discussions are, for the overwhelming part, held in a civil manner, 3) an ecp-protection would probably be seen as cutting off discussion(s) bordering on censorship. In some ways, this talk-page looks like the talk-page of a controversial topic should ideally look: mostly friendly, hassle-free discussions and exchange on how to proceed. Yes, it can be exhausting, but only to the regular looker (who will need patience to answer the same questions over and over again)....for most people dropping in and leaving remarks it isnt. So, having an FAQ section on talk-pages (see Talk:George Floyd as example) is mostly helpful, and can be used to point new users in the right direction without too much effort. Lectonar (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

1881 Focșani Zionist Congress

[edit]

Reason: Risk of vandalism, since it is about Zionism. Edward Mike005 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Declined – Pages are not protected preemptively. Lectonar (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

My Life as a Teenage Robot

[edit]

Indefinite semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Page faces consistent vandalism despite existing level of page protection. Evident by >90% of the last 500 edits having to be reverted. Existing level of page protection is not sufficient. Carolina2k22 • (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

It looks like the page is not protected at all now. --Altenmann >talk 03:34, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Declined – No changes to the current protection level are required at this point in time. Pending changes protection working as intended: disruptive edits are made but don't go "live". Lectonar (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hosei University

[edit]

Semi-protection: Persistent addition of promotional wording. Likely the same person using multiple IPs. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Israel and weapons of mass destruction

[edit]

Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement – ARBPIA. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The Handmaid's Tale (TV series)

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism – Persistent unsourced and irrelevant addition of the same sentence diff. Previously protected for the same reason. Iiii I I I (talk) 05:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Air France fleet

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content – Constant and repeated alterations with no sources, both past and present. Don’t want to request permanent protection without trying temporary protection first. Editors are across multiple different IPs which makes engaging difficult, although this has been tried. Danners430 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Whitney Houston

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: BLP policy violations – Disruption from Special:Contributions/146.135.76.170. Binksternet (talk) 05:56, 16 April 2025 (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 06:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Shakib Al Hasan

[edit]

Semi-protection: BLP policy violations. Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 07:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Gagarin (disambiguation)

[edit]

Reason: IP vandals --Altenmann >talk 08:11, 16 April 2025 (UTC) Yesterday I asked to protect it. It was protected for 1 day. and now all hell broke lose again. Please really protect the page. --Altenmann >talk 08:13, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 10 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Lectonar (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

First Man into Space

[edit]

Reason: IP vandalism nionstop --Altenmann >talk 08:24, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Already protected. Lectonar (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

AJ Styles

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Despite numerous protections, the most recent being for three months, the same disruptive editor has returned to attempt to force their opinion of the subject being considered one of the greatest professional wrestlers of all time into the article with the same source that never backed their claim to begin with. NJZombie (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Terror Units

[edit]

Reason: Edit Wars 126.216.23.73 (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hêzên Komandos

[edit]

Reason: Vandalism 126.216.23.73 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Help:IPA/Russian

[edit]

Temporary semi-protection: Persistent vandalism. Annh07 (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 09:52, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

List of Ni Hao, Kai-Lan episodes

[edit]

Reason: Persistent unsourced/unexplained date changes. Waxworker (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Current requests for reduction in protection level

[edit]
Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
Shortcuts

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.
  • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
  • 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.

Shortcuts

Modestas Mankus

[edit]

Reason: Several new sources found for subject including an award from Forbes 30 Under 30. Also, a fellow of the FRSA[1]. KingMud (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Lee Thompson Young

[edit]

Reason: This article was semi-protected in September 2013 due to an edit war over using an image in the infobox. 12 years later, I think the protection isn't needed anymore as there is currently a fair use photo on the infobox and there's been no edit war against it nor any edits to the article in over seven months. I think we should try unprotecting it. Kaptain Yummy (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

interest

[edit]

Reason: try for phone hack 49.156.103.212 (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Kushwaha

[edit]
  • Error: Protected edit requests can only be made on the talk page.

Request to reduce the protection level of this page from fully protected to semi-protected. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushwaha Reason: There is no current high level of vandalism or edit wars. Semi-protection would allow more constructive editing from autoconfirmed users, while still preventing vandalism from unregistered users.

  • Automated comment: Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. 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 03:03, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Automated comment: @Cyberbot I: 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 03:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Current requests for edits to a protected page

[edit]
Request a specific edit to a protected page
Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
Shortcut

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.
  • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
  • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
  • 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.
Further information: Wikipedia:Edit requests


Handled requests

[edit]

A historical archive of previous protection requests can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive.

Protected edit requests

1 protected edit request
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Template:Wikipedia languages (request) 2025-04-15 03:43 Cascade-protected from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/Main Page/5 (log) 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: 03:46, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
15 template-protected edit requests
v·h
Page Tagged since Protection level Last protection log entry
Template:Infobox officeholder (request) 2025-02-03 08:29 Template-protected (log) Modified by Mark Arsten on 2013-10-18: "Allowing Protected Template editors"
Template:Infobox martial artist (request) 2025-02-05 21:13 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 2000+ transclusions"
Template:Infobox language (request) 2025-02-12 04:16 Template-protected (log) Modified by MusikAnimal on 2021-08-16: "Highly visible template: transclusion count now over 9,000; most recent editors are still able to edit"
Template:Infobox school district (request) 2025-03-01 04:00 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 2000+ transclusions"
Template:Video game reviews (request) 2025-03-28 10:58 Template-protected (log) Modified by WOSlinker on 2013-10-19: "allow template editors to modify"
Template:Copied (request) 2025-04-02 02:34 Template-protected (log) Modified by Callanecc on 2015-02-17: "Highly visible template: More than 7500 transclusions"
Template:Merged-from (request) 2025-04-02 03:42 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 4000+ transclusions"
Module:Copied (request) 2025-04-02 03:43 Template-protected (log) Protected by Newslinger on 2020-06-14: "Highly visible template"
Template:Infobox sports league (request) 2025-04-02 04:26 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 2000+ transclusions"
Template:Rail-interchange (request) 2025-04-02 23:47 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 4000+ transclusions"
Template:Code (request) 2025-04-06 18:03 Template-protected (log) Modified by Fuhghettaboutit on 2013-11-02: "Enable access by template editors"
Template:Infobox drug (request) 2025-04-08 00:36 Template-protected (log) From Template:Drugbox: Modified by Mark Arsten on 2013-10-18: "Allowing Protected Template editors"
Template:College athlete recruit end (request) 2025-04-11 02:44 Template-protected (log) Modified by Primefac on 2018-02-23: "high-risk template with 2000+ transclusions"
Module:Lang/data (request) 2025-04-13 05:56 Cascade-protected from Main Page (log) Modified by KrakatoaKatie on 2016-11-16: "restore"
Wikipedia:WikiProject/Hot articles config.json (request) 2025-04-15 20:16 Template-protected (log) Protected by Izno on 2024-09-29: ""
Updated as needed. Last updated: 03:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:RFA

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
EggRoll97 2 70 24 8 74 15:07, 19 April 2025 3 days, 4 hoursno report
LaundryPizza03 67 75 23 47 03:18, 17 April 2025 0 days, 16 hoursno report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 10:18, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:PERM

Requests for autopatrolled

Autopatrolled

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:CherryPie94

[edit]

New page reviewer who has made over 90 articles including 1 good article and quite familiar with content guidelines, I may also as well not clutter the backlog for other reviewers. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

One thing that immediately jumped out at me is some biographical articles created (e.g. Kim Na and Son Se-bin) have unsourced biographical information, such as the date of birth. This information should be sourced to ensure compliance with WP:DOB. - Aoidh (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
I've considered adding references directly next to DOB, which I did at my two most recent BLPs: Mike Kim and Lee Joon-ho. If birth information is not 100% verifiable, I play it safe (eg. Lee Seung-yoon). Per WP:DOB, links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted so I included Kim Na's personal website which states birth year as 1986 in the external links section. I created Son Se-bin over 5 years ago when I was much less experienced, so I don't quite recall which exact source I used for DOB (birth year seems to have been present in Star Today), so I've just amended that. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah I've misinterpreted that personal website policy, though it does fall under WP:ABOUTSELF, I've now also directly sourced it. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

User:JesusisGreat7

[edit]

I had created around 50+ articles on the English wikipedia, I handle and edit topics mostly on colonial architectures, there are many articles needed to be created on that feild so I would like to request Autopatrolled rights for my account and also to help page reviewers for decreasing workload. Thanks! 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 14:10, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([5]). — MusikBot talk 14:20, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Took a gander at the most recently created articles. On BQM-106 Teleplane, three of four sources are WP:USERGENERATED ([6]), self-published ([7]), or unreliable per RSN. All three sources on LIM-99 are unreliable for the same reasons. Kasmanda Palace relies entirely on primary sources, travel blogs and SPS, plus has a problem with WP:CLOP: [8]. Same sourcing problems with Kellogg Memorial Church. I think your work will continue to benefit from being patrolled. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
 Not done as per the analysis by Dclemens1971. Schwede66 22:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Requests for AutoWikiBrowser access

AutoWikiBrowser

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.


User:Brent Silby

[edit]

Requesting access mostly to perform reference/grammar edits. Brent Silby (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Protobowladdict

[edit]

I’ll mostly use AWB for small fixes like typos and other minor errors ProtobowlAddict talk! 23:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

User:JesusisGreat7

[edit]
I’ve made over 250+ non automated edits and would like to request AWB for repetitive cleanup, fixing links and also to maintain article quality. 👑 Jesus isGreat7 👑 | 📜 Royal Talk 14:46, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for the confirmed flag.

Confirmed

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Requests for extended confirmation

Extended confirmed

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:Tashmetu

[edit]

I had my EC revoked last year by the arbitration committee. I have since completed the required 500 substantial edits to the best of my knowledge. I applied about a month ago and was refused because I didn't clearly understand the requirements. But hopefully this time I got it correctly. Tashmetu (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for extended confirmed declined in the past 90 days ([9]) and has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([10]). — MusikBot talk 14:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

User:IdanST

[edit]

I had my ECP revoked 5 months ago. Since then, I've made hundreds of meaningful edits and currently have 806 edits. IdanST (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([11]). — MusikBot talk 18:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Jlktutu

[edit]

I had my EC revoked because of gaming of the system. I believe this happened March 22, 2025. Since then, I have attempted to edit constructively on Wikipedia. I want to see if there is a way that I can get EC. Thanks again

 Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([12]). — MusikBot talk 05:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Requests for new page reviewer

New page reviewer

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:Rahmatula786

[edit]

I am reapplying for the new page reviewer role after my initial request was declined because now I realize I had applied prematurely. Since then, I have gained some experience, refined my understanding of Wikipedia’s policies, and have been actively contributing to the Articles for Creation (AfC) review process. This has not only strengthened my ability to assess new articles but has also given me useful experience in engaging constructively with editors.

I am well-versed with Wikipedia’s guidelines, particularly regarding notability, verifiability, and neutrality. My strength is my ability to remain unbiased while reviewing, and I always strive to improve by learning from my mistakes. Though my registered account is only a few months old, I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, which has given me substantial familiarity with its norms and regulations.

I have been enjoying reviewing AfC drafts, and this experience has encouraged me to take on a more active role in maintaining Wikipedia’s quality. I now feel myself confident that I can handle this responsibility and would greatly appreciate the opportunity to contribute as a new page reviewer.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards, Rahmatula786 (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([13]). — MusikBot talk 17:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
@Rahmatula786: What do you mean by though my registered account is only a few months old, I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time – did you have another account before this one? – Joe (talk) 08:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
No Sir, Before creating this account, I used to edit Wikipedia anonymously and made various contributions. However, after realizing the benefits of having a registered account, I created this one and have since been actively editing and contributing regularly. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Why did you reject this submission?[14] topic is notable.. it's seems you don't have knowledge about notability guidelines. Hellorld4 (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I have replied on your talk page. Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Junbeesh

[edit]

I would like to request NPR rights to contribute more effectively to this area and help reduce the backlog at NPP. I have created 18 articles and have been actively involved in patrolling new pages, tagging non-notable and promotional content for CSD and AfD. Many of the articles I have nominated for CSD or AfD have been deleted, which I believe reflects my understanding of Wikipedia's notability and content policies. With NPR rights, I will be able to continue this work more efficiently. I am familiar with relevant guidelines and policies and would appreciate the opportunity to help out in this area. Thanks for your time and consideration! Junbeesh (talk) 07:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Upjav

[edit]

I've been an editor for a while and have experience in article creation (mainly on the shorter side for more niche areas with fewer sources) and have a few DYKs under my belt. Think my knowledge of policy demonstrated through this makes me a good fit for these permissions. Upjav (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

As a further note, I'd like to review new pages. Upjav (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Just out of pure morbid interest - you reviewed the first page I created back in 2014! Did it all work differently back then or something - like not needing the reviewer right? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Yooooooooooo that's awesome! It didn't require a permission back then (this became a thing in Oct 2016), and I think I was inactive in page review around that time so I didn't notice and didn't apply. Most of what I do is article creation in niche areas, so I haven't bothered to apply. Upjav (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, you left a kind word with your review back then and it's stuck with me since, so you were clearly doing NPP right!!! :) Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

User:JustARandomEditor123

[edit]

I wish to apply for New Page Reviewer permissions to deal with the large backlog of unreviewed pages. I have participated in many AfD discussions, which proves my understanding of Wikipedia's content policies and notability guidelines. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Itemirus

[edit]

Hi, I am a quite experienced Wikipedia editor and pending changes reviewer; I may contribute in this field as well. Itemirus (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Yutsi

[edit]

I have significant experience patrolling new pages from years ago. I have re-familiarized myself with content policies and would like to resume. — yutsi (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Cyrobyte

[edit]

I am requesting this permission because I want to volunteer in reducing the NPP backlog and ensuring that new pages are encyclopedic and properly cited. I believe that I am qualified to be a new page reviewer because I have created many new articles that are encyclopedic and adequately sourced, nominated new pages for speedy deletion when appropriate and have participated in the AfD process. Cyrobyte (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Mekomo

[edit]

I have temporary NPP right which will expire in few days, I kindly request renewal of this right to continue reviewing articles. Thank you. Mekomo (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 28 March 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 14:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
@Rosguill do you want this one? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
HJ Mitchell I’m generally fine with other admins reviewing track records for people whom I conferred trial runs to (and arguably the extra set of eyes is a good thing). My activity has been rather inconsistent lately in particular due to other demand on my time so I would expect others to step in more signed, Rosguill talk 22:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

User:CSMention269

[edit]

I am an AFC reviewer asking for another trial or permanent permission for this flag. Last time, it was granted by @Sohom Datta: for a 2-month trial after the first month trial was successful. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 04:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Sohom Datta (expires 00:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 04:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Moritoriko

[edit]

Hello, I have 1 denied applied about a month ago because I didn't have 500 undeleted Main space edits at the time. I now have 501 so I am reapplying for temporary permissions. I have a decent amount of experience going through AfDs and source searching to check if they are notability. Moritoriko (talk) 06:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for new page reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([15]). — MusikBot talk 06:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

User:AstrooKai

[edit]

I would like to expand my contributions to Wikipedia by helping address the extensive backlog at NPP. I have been an active participant in the AfC process as a probationary reviewer for multiple months, and I regularly take part in AfDs and occasionally in PRODs within the scope of WP:PHILIPPINES. While I understand that my impact on the backlog may not be significant in terms of numbers, I am committed to performing thorough, policy-aligned reviews to the best of my ability. AstrooKai (Talk) 19:32, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Yoblyblob

[edit]

I had a trial permission to manage redirects close to a year ago, if I remember correctly. I did not have time for the back half of that trial, but have more time now. I have noticed how large the article backlog is and would try to work on lowering that, since I am finding myself with a lot more free time on here. Generally think I have a good past experience with AfD, not as much as some, but understand most guidelines well. May leave some more questionable pages up for a different reviewer, but have a good record adding categories and WikiProjects on my own article. Lots of my current pages are election pages or football pages, so might lean more into reviewing those since I am most familiar with those guidelines. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

User:QEnigma

[edit]

Hello, I was granted temporary New page reviewer rights on 14 January 2025 ([16]) for a period of two months and again on 20 March ([17]) for an additional month. This current period is due to expire on 20 April. I would appreciate it if these rights could be extended and made permanent. Thank you. QEnigma talk 05:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 05:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Juxlos

[edit]

I have been active mostly at the creator side for a while and would like to help out in the filtering/supporting new editors and pages. Juxlos (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Cinder painter

[edit]

I was granted temporary New Page Reviewer rights for one month, which expire on 20 April. During this period, I carefully completed a reasonable number of reviews (of pages of various topics), including reviewing and tagging new pages with banners, draftifying, requesting speedy deletions, and creating AfDs. While reviewing new pages, I often searched for additional reliable sources and added them to the articles I was reviewing, to ensure that they were not lacking significant coverage references. It was time-consuming, but I felt it was a good thing to do. Therefore, I kindly ask to review my NPP work and, if it's ok, consider granting me permanent NPP rights. Cinder painter (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 07:40, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Afonso Dimas Martins

[edit]

I believe I meet most criteria. Plus I already review scientific articles irl, so I would say I have some experience on reviewing in general. Here to help where needed. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Ambrosiawater

[edit]

Hello, I was given the New Page Reviewer rights as a one-month trial. This permission will expire on 20 April 2025. During this time, I have been doing active reviewing of new pages and learning more about notability, reliable sources, and the CSD/PROD/AfD process. I tried always to be careful and make constructive reviews. I really want to keep helping with this work. So I would like to ask if possible to renew or give the reviewer rights permanently, depending on my work this last month. Thanks a lot for your time and consideration. Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user was granted temporary new page reviewer rights by Rosguill (expires 00:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)). — MusikBot talk 10:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
Requests for page mover

Page mover

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:GMH Melbourne

[edit]
I wish to assist at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. I also close WP:RM discussions from time to time and this tool will save me from having to do a technical request every time. I meet the WP:PMCRITERIA. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Requests for pending changes reviewer

Pending changes reviewer

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:Srimant ROSHAN

[edit]

I have been active on Wikipedia, I'd like to request PCR to monitor recent changes. I'm aware of WP:NOTVANDAL & WP:AGF, so there won't be any "biting newcomers" reverts. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Mz7 (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

User:WormEater13

[edit]

Hi! My name is WormEater13. I would like to request PCR rights. Having created multiple articles before and having made over 100 manual mainspace edits, especially for WP:BLP, I believe that I am knowledgable about Wikipedia policies such as WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for pending changes reviewer declined in the past 90 days ([18]). — MusikBot talk 13:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Somajyoti

[edit]

I am requesting permission to be a Pending Changes Reviewer. I spend most of my day editing Wikipedia. I have gone through almost all the pages under Category:Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia's policies on vandalism detection, BLP policy, NPOV, Verifiability, and copyright. I have read the Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes guideline. Please consider my request. Somajyoti ✉ 07:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has had an account for 25 days. — MusikBot talk 07:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

User:VortexPhantom

[edit]

Hi, I would like to request pending changes reviewer rights on English Wikipedia to tackle with the edits protected with pending changes while patrolling in the RC, since I have rollback rights. I think I fulfill the criteria to get this right. Also, I understand the related policies to manage these edits. This would give me a better chance to work to improve Wikipedia.

Thanks for considering my request. VortexPhantom🔥 (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Requests for rollback

Rollback

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.

User:Chippla360

[edit]

Greetings, I am requesting for the rollback rights to assist my passion in fighting against vandalism and roll off disruptive edits on Wikipedia, I actively scroll on recent changes feed and also new page feeds, I am familiar with WP:VANDALISM, I wish to use the AntiVandal tool which will help me revert more edits that goes against Wikipedia policies, I will love to help the community, Thanks to any admin willing at his or her discretion to grant me this permission. Best Regards (CP) 22:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. You've been inconsistently warning editors (or otherwise not explaining the reason) when reverting them. I'm also concerned about this edit, since being a new editor is never a reason to revert them, especially when the COI tag alluded to was recently added by a block-evading sockpuppet who had already been blocked when that revert was made, who had a problematic history of accusing others of having a COI even before the sockpuppetry block. Alluding that this new editor had a conflict of interest was inappropriate, as was reverting them on that basis. - Aoidh (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice @Aoidh, tho I wasn’t comfortable with the edit from the new user but still I have reverted many misleading edits in good faith, and Atimes I use the vandalism botton to revert which doesn’t give me an option to explain reasons, but most of my revert I give reasons, you can check it there. Also see this Warning, Atimes I will warn on user talk or the IP talk, please I will love to have a trial of this permission so I can use the "AntiVandalism" tool. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 23:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
You're responsible for your edits, which includes using edit summaries and explanations when needed. If tools you're using (including Rollback) or a script prevents you from using an edit summary when one would be needed, then that tool or script should not be used to make that edit. A track record of doing this should be shown before reapplying, since using rollback and failing to provide an explanation when needed is cause for removal of that tool, as Wikipedia:Rollback notes. As mentioned in the criteria at the top of WP:PERM/R, there should also be [a] track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@Aoidh Most of my revert have summary but if I won’t get the permission on either trials or indefinitely that’s fine, when should I reapply? Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:39, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I would personally suggest at least a month or two of solid anti-vandalism work, using edit summaries when needed and consistently notifying editors during that time period, before reapplying. - Aoidh (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Sadly, other revert with summary didn’t count. Chippla ✍️ - Best Regards 00:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User:SilviaASH

[edit]

I have been editing constructively on the project for a few years now and would like to more effectively revert disruptive edits when I encounter them. I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies and understand the distinction between purely disruptive edits and edits that may be unhelpful but are made in good-faith. When reverting a new user's edits, I make sure to properly explain myself in an edit summary and leave a message on the relevant article's or user's talk page as appropriate, unless the user is obviously acting in bad faith and WP:DENY applies, in which case I report them to a relevant noticeboard. I have thoroughly read the WP:ROLLBACK instructions and will make sure to familiarize myself with the tools before using them, and avoid using the rollback tools when they are not appropriate and another reversion tool would be more suitable. silviaASH (inquire within) 06:57, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Malinaccier (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Imwin567

[edit]

I would like to request rollback permissions to help combat vandalism more effectively on Wikipedia, I have been reverting vandalism for a good amount of time from recent changes using twinkle and undo. Therefore I think rollback tool can help me to assist in identifying and reverting unconstructive edits efficiently. Imwin567 (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

User:The Seal F1

[edit]

Hello. I would like to get a rollback. I often search for vandalism on Wikipedia, and it will obviously be easier for me to fight it with a rollback. I warn users when necessary, and i know the most important WP policies. The Seal F1 (talk) 07:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

User:WhoIsCentreLeft

[edit]

Hello! Im requesting rollback rights because i am an extended confirmed user that has made hundreds of high-quality edits in mainspace. I need rollback tool to revert vandalism and other non-constructive edits more easier. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. You do not need rollback to revert vandalism, and as the criteria at the top of WP:PERM/R notes, editors requesting rollback should have [a]t least a month of experience patrolling Special:RecentChanges and [a] track record of consistently notifying editors when reverting their edits. - Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

User:VeritasVanguard

[edit]

I request rollback rights to quickly revert clear vandalism and disruptive edits. This would help maintain article integrity and ease the workload for admins, especially during active vandalism periods. Thank you for considering my request. VeritasVanguard: "Seeking truth in every edit" 16:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

 Automated comment This user has 99 edits in the mainspace. — MusikBot talk 16:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
There are no outstanding requests for template editor.

Template editor

[edit]
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
    Category tracker

    Immediate requests

    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Wikipedians looking for help 0
    Requests for unblock 81
    Candidates for speedy deletion as attack pages 1
    Candidates for speedy deletion as copyright violations 0
    Candidates for speedy deletion 22
    Wikipedia fully protected edit requests 1

    Deletion

    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Articles for deletion 589
    Templates for deletion 269
    Categories for deletion 130
    Wikipedia files for discussion 35
    All redirects for discussion 475
    Miscellaneous pages for deletion 29
    Possible copyright violations 26
    All articles proposed for deletion 200
    All files proposed for deletion 8
    Unsorted AfD debates 3
    All files with the same name on Commons 47
    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Orphaned non-free use 563
    Unknown copyright status 49
    Unknown source 19
    No non-free use rationale 3
    Replaceable non-free use images 14
    Disputed non-free use images 9

    Page protection

    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Protected 10
    Semi-protected user and user talk pages 1,280
    Fully protected user and user talk pages 452
    Protected against vandalism 5
    Protected talk pages of blocked users 34
    Semi-protected 2,325
    Arbitration 500/30 restricted 0

    Cleanup

    [edit]

    General cleanup

    Category Entries Percentage
    All pages needing cleanup 34,201 0.49
    All articles needing rewrite 6,269 0.09
    All articles needing expert attention 1,350 0.02
    All Wikipedia articles in need of updating 40,930 0.59

    Reference problems

    Category Entries Percentage
    All pages needing factual verification 11,512 0.16
    All articles with unsourced statements 544,527 7.8
    All articles lacking sources 64,763 0.93
    All unreferenced BLPs 18 0
    All articles needing additional references 482,619 6.91
    All articles needing references cleanup 4,667 0.07
    All articles lacking in-text citations 106,136 1.52
    All articles with dead external links 286,905 4.11

    Image cleanup problems

    Category Entries Percentage
    Image files for cleanup 17 -
    Wikipedia files lacking a description 129 -
    Wikipedia files with unknown source 17 -

    Other problems

    Category Entries Percentage
    All articles to be merged 1,204 0.02
    All articles to be split 809 0.01
    Unsorted Stubs 0 -
    Stub categories 19,780 -
    All uncategorized pages 401 0.01
    All orphaned articles 54,311 0.78
    All articles needing copy edit 2,252 0.03
    All articles with style issues 19,370 0.28
    All Wikipedia articles needing context 2,770 0.04
    All articles that may contain original research 16,584 0.24


    Miscellaneous

    [edit]
    Category Entries
    Requested moves 775
    All Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes 5,116
    All accuracy disputes 15,837
    Articles with invalid ISBNs 0
    Articles with invalid ISSNs 3
    All articles to be expanded 65,537

    Special pages

    [edit]
    Maintenance reports Information
    Broken redirects
    Dead-end pages Dead-end pages
    Dormant pages Dusty articles
    DoubleRedirects Double redirects
    Lonely pages Orphaned articles
    Long pages
    New pages New page patrol
    New pages feed Page curation
    Protected pages Protection policy
    Short pages
    Uncategorized Categorization
    Uncategorized cats
    Uncategorized templates
    Unused categories
    Unused files (images)
    Unused templates
    Without interwiki links
    Most interwiki links


    Sub-page listing

    [edit]

    Hong Kong

    [edit]
    Hong Kong skyline at night

    Misc

    [edit]
    Delete Keep Neutral Oppose Support Note Template



    Multi-licensed with the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike License versions 1.0 and 2.0
    I agree to multi-license my text contributions, unless otherwise stated, under Wikipedia's copyright terms and the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license version 1.0 and version 2.0. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under the Creative Commons terms, please check the CC dual-license and Multi-licensing guides.
    1. ^ https://www.forbes.com/profile/modestas-mankus/
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Winhunter&oldid=1190483781"