Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. I assume you're referring to the "DICK" part of their username? If so, let's wait as this could legitamely be their real name. If not, what am I missing? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:07, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
1488 can be Nazi too. However they've not edited. Secretlondon (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it's (or rather, can be) some sort of neo-Nazi thing. The user is already blocked on ru.wiki for their name; not that it matters here, of course, but just mentioning. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I think it's unlikely that anyone has 1488 in their username accidentally (unless it makes sense as an address or something). I think VlaDICK might be Vladimir and their first account was on ru, but they still haven't edited on en: and I doubt they will. I've no objection to anyone blocking them but it doesn't make much difference really. Secretlondon (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Not a blatant violation of the username policy, but it's worth keeping an eye on their edits. Agree re COI and disruption but not an obvious UAA. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Being discussed with the user.. It's just barely conceivable that "Blitz" is a person's name and their username falls wthin the UAA exception of "John from Foo." I've left them a UPE warning for their now-deleted userpage, which was promotional and likely paid/COI. Let's see what happens next. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Place requests for new or upgrading pending changes, semi-protection, full protection, move protection, create protection, template editor protection, or upload protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Extended-confirmed protection: Arbitration enforcement per WP:ECR. Left guide (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment:@Left guide: 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 20:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined until the AFD (which seems headed towards keep, but it's still got only two !votes) is resolved. There's no evidence of serious disruption, and the ECP that would probably apply might get in the way of any improvements that might need to be made. Daniel Case (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: High level of vandalism 2.49.42.105 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. I only see one instance of disruption since the last protection (which I imposed) expired months ago. Daniel Case (talk) 19:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: This topic widely cover the frontline of religious institutes WP:IF and spiritually and usefully pose an verbal important for thousands of daily viewers so its generically an common instance to increase the protection of this sensitive topic at least to extend confirm user right coverage to prevent anonymous intervention from overall contributor's 113.177.117.19 (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done. @EndzoneEnthusiast: There is a lot that is far than ideal here. Edits are being reverted without any explanation. And if there are disruptive edits, then there should be some meaningful user talk page warnings explaining our guidelines and standards, and I don't see any recent warnings. Finally, the recent history is almost entirely bereft of meaningful edit summaries. Please start using edit summaries and leaving warnings when necessary. If the disruption continues in a significant way, we can reconsider page protection at a later time. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing – This article keeps getting targeted by IP caste-warriors. Was protected in the past and disruption resumed shortly after its protection expired. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite semi-protection: Unregistered users are wreaking havoc on this page by adding unrelated images, ungrammatical sentences, and edit warring. Generally, all cities have a minimum of pending or semi-protection so the same is required here too. 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝟐𝟎𝟒𝟖 00:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary full protection: Content dispute/edit warring. At least, this needs to be logged as CTOP for post-1992 US politics and permanent ECP. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done. Edit war seems to have stopped. Will keep an eye on the article. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈 10:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: The blocked user Havaa Fitzgerald is back vandalising Template:CNN and Template:CNN personnel. They just keep switching IP, so I'm requesting temporary protection for both. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t° 01:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary semi-protection: Numerous IP addresses (which probably are all the same person) have maliciously changed the founding year from 1947 to 1964 since October 19, 2024. In addition to the usual warnings in the talk pages of the IPs (some of which have been blocked), the vandalism can easily be recognized by the incoherence of the History section which claims the company was founded in "1964" and then goes on talking about events from the 1950s in the sentences after it. 76.65.74.178 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 2 weeks, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Temporary pending changes protection: Vandalism immediately after previous semi-expired. seems to have some useful contributions from non autoconfirmed editors Justiyaya 02:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Pending-changes protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Euryalus (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Indefinite extended confirmed protection: Persistent disruptive editing and a extremely contentious topic. Multiple sockpuppets have been adding untrue information and violating BLP policy violations for months now. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 08:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Declined – Not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection. Problem editor has been blocked. Isabelle Belato🏳🌈 10:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin at their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.
To find out the username of the admin who protected the page click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page" which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected please use the section below.
Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.
Reason: A permanent extended-confirmed protection is complete overkill, autoconfirmed should be enough, this article barely gets edited anymore--FMSky (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: It's not overkill if the disruption was coming from auto-confirmed accounts, which it was in this case per the protection log.-- Ponyobons mots 18:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Not unprotected. The current protection level seems reasonable and appropriate. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: The page has multiple errors that are not being updated despite users' intimations on the talk page. It's been under extended protection for a long time despite not being a high-risk template. Almost all cities' pages are only semi-protected so decreasing the protection should be considered. 𝐖𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫𝟐𝟎𝟒𝟖 00:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Not unprotected. @Wallflower2048: Hi Wallflower2048. Thanks for making a request. You need to ask El C on their user talk page since they protected the article (see WP:UNPROTPOL for more information). If El C does not reply then you can make a new request. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
That page has seen unrelenting spam and been semiprotected 15 times prior, but even that wasn't enough. Still, I'm willing to downgrade to test the waters, even though my confidence of it being enough is low. But that was 2019, so sure why not. Done. El_C 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Reason: I want to write more about this article from various sources on internet so kindly unprotect this page. 103.170.179.25 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Then make an account. Or ask on the talk page. - Sumanuil. (talk to me) 08:20, 10 November 2024 (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.
My suggestion is to leave out the following 2 sentences in the "German complicity" paragraph as they seem to be based on misunderstandings:
"She also highlighted police suppression of pro-Palestine protests throughout Germany[509] as evidence of state complicity.[508] Karen Wells et al. highlight how Germany has entrenched its complicity in Israel's actions by banning use of the word "genocide" in reference to Israel.[471][better source needed]"
1. In general violent protests are not allowed in Germany. As some of the first pro-Palestine protests were violent, they were sometimes forbidden by courts, if they were expected to turn violent. But that is common policy in Gemany with all subjects and not special for pro-Palestine protests.
Meanwhile, there even is a calendar concerning pro-Palestinian protests[8] with daily up to 20 protests all over Germany. Thus, there is no general police suppression of pro-Palestine protests as is suggested by the current wording.
2. The word “genocide” is not banned in reference to Israel in Germany - maybe that was a misunderstanding: What is not allowed in Germany is to call for genocide against Jews. The slogan “From the river to the sea” is seen as such call and banned. Gilbert04 (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@FortunateSons: A quick browse shows at least for the first part support for removal, can you add any additional incite? -- Cdjp1 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I can confirm that both statements are broadly true. IMO, the best resource for this discussion (in the contemporary context) is probably Steinberg: Versammlungsfreiheit nach dem 7. Oktober - NVwZ 2024, 302. Direct citation: “Die Subsumtion unter diesen Tatbestand bereitet aber auch sonst Probleme. Die Stadt Frankfurt a. M. hatte dem Anmelder einer Versammlung „Frieden in Nahost" am 2.12.2023 untersagt, während der Versammlung zur Vernichtung Israels aufzurufen, dem Staat Israel das Existenzrecht abzusprechen, sowie die Aussagen „Israel Kindermörder", „Juden Kindermörder", „Israel bringt Kinder um" sowie „From the river to the sea" zu tätigen. Diese Beschränkungen hob das VG Frankfurt vollständig auf. Auf die Beschwerde der Stadt differenzierte der VGH Kassel Aufrufe zur Vernichtung Israels verstießen - wie gesagt - gegen § 111 StGB und die Aussage „Juden Kindermörder" erfülle den Tatbestand der Volksverhetzung (§ 130 StGB). Demgegenüber wurden andere Außerungen wie „Kindermörder Israel" oder die Bezeichnung der israelischen Militäroperationen in Gaza als „Genozid" nicht beanstandet und die Entscheidung des VG insoweit aufrechterhalten. Es sei davon auszugehen, dass bei den militärischen Verteidigungshandlungen Israels auch Kinder zu Schaden kämen. Eine solche laienhafte Zuspitzung sei im Rahmen der Meinungsfreiheit hinzunehmen. Anders hatte der VGH Mannheim am 21.10.2023 ein Verbot der Parole „Israel Kindermörder" und „Israel bringt Kinder um" durch die Versammlungsbehörde trotz bestehender Zweifel über deren Strafbarkeit aufrechterhalten; im Verfahren des vorläufigen Rechtsschutzes sei nur eine summarische Prüfung möglich; eine einmal getätigte Äußerung könne nicht rückgängig gemacht werden. Die Unterscheidung zwischen antisemitisch und antiisraelisch stellt sicherlich eine Gratwanderung dar, die hier im Einzelnen nicht beschrieben werden kann“autotranslated: “However, the subsumption under this offense also causes other problems. On December 2, 2023, the city of Frankfurt am Main had prohibited the person registering a meeting "Peace in the Middle East" from calling for the destruction of Israel during the meeting, from denying the State of Israel the right to exist, and from making the statements "Israel, child murderer," "Jews, child murderer," "Israel kills children" and "From the river to the sea." The Administrative Court of Frankfurt completely lifted these restrictions. In response to the city's complaint, the Administrative Court of Kassel differentiated that calls for the destruction of Israel violated - as mentioned - Section 111 of the Criminal Code and that the statement "Jews, child murderer" constituted incitement to hatred (Section 130 of the Criminal Code). In contrast, other statements such as "Israel, child murderer" or the description of Israeli military operations in Gaza as "genocide" were not objected to and the Administrative Court's decision was upheld in this respect. It can be assumed that children would also be harmed in Israel's military defense actions. Such a lay exaggeration must be accepted within the framework of freedom of expression. On October 21, 2023, the Mannheim Higher Administrative Court upheld a ban on the slogans "Israel, child murderer" and "Israel kills children" by the assembly authority despite existing doubts about their criminal liability; in the interim legal protection procedure, only a summary examination is possible; a statement once made cannot be reversed. The distinction between anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli is certainly a balancing act that cannot be described in detail here.” There is no broad ban on pro-Palestinian protests either, and they were even allowed to happen on Oct. 7 of this year (in some cases). While there are legal disputes on specifics for both, I’m pretty confident that no reasonable person would disagree with “broadly permitted” regarding both claims. FortunateSons (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Bonus: there can be cases where something isn’t criminal, but can be restricted in other ways, for example due to different burdens of proof or social pressures. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I've removed #2. But there does seem to be evidence that pro-Palestine protests have been banned in parts of Germany at times.[9][10][11].VR(Please ping on reply) 14:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Maybe the following article gives a bit more clarity.[[12]] Gilbert04 (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately that source seems incomplete. Germany has indeed suppressed peaceful criticism of Israel.[13] And Washington Post says "A planned photo exhibit in southwestern Germany was canceled as a result of social media posts by its curator, including one describing “genocide” in Gaza."[14]VR(Please ping on reply) 22:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, I do not think that any source will ever be complete. Let me add two more.[[15]][[16]] Gilbert04 (talk) 20:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Consider changing "The Israeli government rejected South Africa's allegations, and accused the court of being antisemitic, which it often does when criticised" to "The Israeli government has been accused of consistently weaponizing antisemitism against it's critics, including in the ICJ ruling." Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
The Weaponization of antisemitism page hyperlinked over "often done" has many sources to draw from regarding the accusations' consistency and nature.
My main concern with the original text is that it's voiced as if it's an observation made by a Wikipedian. The benefit here is that the weaponization of antisemitism has a clearer consistency grounded outside of Wikipedia. Perhaps other ways to word this out include adding a time scale (increasingly accused since Oct. 7th) or specifying the critique (against critiques of their actions since Oct 7th).
If a lead paragraph change is necessary, there may be reason to outline Israeli motives and conditions for the genocide, including Zionism and anti-Arab racism. Ecco2kstan (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not as familiar with the Holocaust erasure claims, but I'm happy with that reworking! If that weaponization of Holocaust denial detail isn't on the weaponization of antisemitism page already, it might be a worthwhile phenomenon incorporate if there's more citations you can find. I might look into it myself. Thanks! Ecco2kstan (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That does sound quite balanced. +1 from me. Neutral Editor 645 (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Vice regent: Would you please make this change, so we can close this request? ~Anachronist (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The text I originally wanted modified was changed to "Israel's supporters say that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, but others argue antisemitism should not be exploited to shield Israel from such allegations" after other discussions on the talk page. I almost like it better, but by saying "Israel's supporters" it relieves some of the responsibility from the Israeli government in the accusations that was, to an extent, duly credited in the original modification. Maybe now, it should just say "The Israeli government and their supporters say that accusing the state for genocide antisemitic..." or something similar. Ecco2kstan (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Stated Israeli tank losses in casualty and losses infobox are incorrect, attributed article from Business Insider states "The IDF again had problems with anti-tank missiles during the 2006 war in Lebanon, when Hezbollah employed Russian-made Kornets. Though about 50 Merkavas were damaged, only five were destroyed, according to the IDF, which also struggled with poorly maintained vehicles and ill-trained crews." Casualties and losses box states this number as if it was from current conflict. Article does, however, state that "Israel has lost nearly two dozen tanks during fighting with Hamas since October 7." I believe losses of tanks in the infobox should be fixed to reflect this. 155.225.2.98 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The 70% figure in both the primary and the secondary source refers to the deaths that were verified by the UN Human Rights Office, not the totality of deaths in Gaza.
Accordingly, the current phrasing "70% of Palestinian deaths in Gaza are women and children" is inaccurate and should be changed to "70% of the 8,119 verified deaths were women and children" Zlmark (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
in the content, higehst grossing franchises, rank 4 (Cop Universe), in that one, the movie Singham Returns (2014) is highlighted in green which indicates it is a recent movie, but actually the movie Singham Again (2024) should be highlighted in green because unlike Singham Returns, it is a recent movie, it has wrongly been marked, kindly correct it. Thanks :) Zev the Editor (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
I respectfully request Rollback access to facilitate the use of Huggle, which will allow me to promptly and efficiently revert vandalism. I've been monitoring Recent Changes for the past 2-3 months, reverting disruptive edits.
I'm familiar with some Wikipedia policies, including: Reporting repeated vandals after 4 talk page warnings at WP:AIV, reporting reporting sock puppet accounts at WP:SPI and following the 3-revert rule (WP:3RR). And also I'm familiar with the use of Twinkle. ®asteemTalk 20:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
I see that you are failing to consistently warn editors when you revert their edits. Why? It's important to leave a notification for every revert you make (especially when reverting good faith edits). Are you aware of tools such as Twinkle or Ultraviolet which make this extremely easy? -Fastily 21:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Fastily, I'm already using Twinkle. I've warned many users for vandalism, but I don't warn new users who have made only one edit, as per "Back Biting" guideline. Instead, I typically warn a user after their second vandalism attempt. But in future I'll consider warning users even after one non-constructive edit. ®asteemTalk 21:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
No, that is incorrect. You need to be leaving notifications (or warnings) for every revert, regardless of how many edits the user has made or whether this is the user's first instance of vandalism. -Fastily 01:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Done}} I'll always leave a warning notice on their talk page without digging into their number of edits. ®asteemTalk®asteemTalk 01:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Great, could you please now go do some RC patrol in which you demonstrate how you will always be notifying all editors when you revert their edits? Also please don't use {{Done}} or {{Not done}} in your replies to me; on this page at least, these are for admin use only. -Fastily 02:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I'll do RC patrol & will always notify users when I revert their changes. I sincerely apologize for using {done} or {not done} previously. ®asteemTalk 03:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Just took another look at your recent contributions and I'm still seeing instances where you are reverting edits and failing to notify the editor: 1, 2, 3. Didn't you just promise that you would be more diligent about this? -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I have used Twinkle to revert around 800 edits but would like to use a tool like Huggle to be more effective. I use Ultraviolet but it's still incomplete. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 15:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done I noticed you make a handful of edits, and then drop off for months at a time. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'd like to see you spend at least a month consistently patrolling RecentChanges (Twinkle & Ultraviolet can help with that) before reapplying. Also, please ensure that you are always warning editors when you revert their edits. Thanks, Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
@Fastily: I don't think spending a month consistently patrolling is a requirement for rollback. If someone wants to spend two weeks out of the year patrolling for vandalism, and they're otherwise doing it correctly, let them. In fact, help them by giving them rollback. Levivich (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's soemthing you won't see me saying every day: I agree entirely with Levivich. We don't need to be giving people the thrird degree over rollback. It truly is not a big deal. Just Step Sidewaysfrom this world ..... today 21:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Agreed that rollback is no big deal, hence the availability of javascript tools such as WP:TW & WP:UV that implement rollback in software. However, the rollback right itself now gates access to high-volume tools such as WP:HG & WP:ANVDL which in the wrong hands can be used to cause a lot of damage in a short amount of time. I used to be fast and loose with granting rollback, but I scrutinize more closely now because I've been burned several times by giving rollback to users who got it revoked and/or users who were actually sockpuppets. As for OP's request, they haven't established a consistent enough track record where I can confidently say whether rollback will be used appropriately. Could I grant rollback? Sure. Maybe we get more helpful contributions and nothing bad happens. Do I know that? No of course not, I, like every other admin who answers PERM requests is making educated guesses based on past performance. Obviously that's just my opinion and you're free to disagree. In fact, I won't even stop you if you want to grant rollback, but for what it's worth anything that happens after that point, good or bad, falls entirely on you. -Fastily 10:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism and removing edits by sock-puppets. Also if my move script breaks again. BilledMammal (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi BilledMammal. Not sure if you knew this but folks requesting rollback are usually doing so because they want access to high-volume anti-vandalism/RecentChanges patrol tools such as Huggle or AntiVandal. Is there any reason why something like Twinkle is insufficient for your needs? I did a quick review of your recent contributions and I'm not seeing a high volume of reverts that would necessitate rollback. -Fastily 22:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to request rollback to use Huggle. I was granted it on trial in April 2023 but went on a year-long Wikibreak almost immediately afterwards. A request I made in June was denied because I hadn't been active for very long. I've been much more active since then. Thanks. CFA💬 03:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm initially inclined to grant the right, seeing as you have both New Page Reviewer and Page Mover (which generally require higher levels of trust). However, after reading this archived talk comment from August, where you appear to agree that you were edit warring, I do have a few questions:
If you are granted this right, under what circumstances do you plan to use the vanilla (i.e. out-of-the box, in-browser) rollback functions? Will you use vanilla rollback while reverting vandalism through Special:RecentChanges, while disputing content edits made by other editors in lieu of using the undo tool, or will you simply use this right for Huggle?
I suppose I might use it to revert sockpuppet edits or blatant vandalism, though Twinkle rollback works just fine for that. I'm mainly looking to use it for Huggle. I wouldn't use it to dispute content edits because it's easier to add an edit summary with Twinkle rollback or Undo. CFA💬 03:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. The reason I asked is because it is prohibited to use the vanilla rollback tool while disputing good-faith/non-vandal content edits. Keep this in mind, and all should be fine. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 03:35, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Requests for permission - account creator
There are no outstanding requests for account creator.
