Wikibooks:Requests for permissions/Archive 8

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

[edit] Requests for permissions

[edit] Howard Beale ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Editor)

I have recently been hired under a NSF grant awarded to Dr. Richard Doyle for, among other things, expanding and maintaining the Nanotechnology wikibook. Unfortunately, not even the former lead editor ( KristianMolhave) has permissions to approve changes made to the book, and no one has taken her place. So far as I can tell, no one still active on the book has editor status - a factor contributing greatly to the current stagnation of this project. Since no one still involved with the wikibook can approve my changes to the index and other pages, I have come here.

I am requesting manual authorization of my editor status for this wikibook only, if possible. Though I will certainly meet the requirements eventually, there is a time limiting factor imposed by the fact that this book is being used as a material reference in the curriculum of a Pennsylvania State University class associated with the grant. In order to add reviewed student contributions as they are created and incorporate research generated by our college in a way useful to both the wikibook and our class, I ask that I be granted editor status.

Although I have few edits on this wiki so far - in part due to my disillusionment from it currently taking two weeks for anything I code to be approved - you can see much more of my work at our Nanotransformations wiki, and my contributions page there. Thanks in advance! — Howard Beale (talk) 22:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The requirements for the flags were reached by trial and error, it falls to the acting admin to be satisfied by the requests for permission and that no objection is raised. I'm not objecting here, only attempting to explain the situation to you...

One of your comments seem strange to my understanding on how the system works, you said "I have few edits on this wiki so far - in part due to my disillusionment from it currently taking two weeks for anything I code to be approved", since your first 2 edits on the 8 October 2009 (having I "sighted" one of them on that same day), I don't understand how could you become so disenchanted about the system and the project to place this request on your fourth edit...

I'm not particularly supportive on the new flagged revision system on wikibooks, the issues you raise are only a few of the problems the system has on a project like Wikibooks (and am a bit unsatisfied myself by it not be formally discussed, since the approved but unspecified trial period has been for all measures supplanted).

In any case the only rational I can see for the requirements seems to be as a reward for the commitment of users to the project and to reduce the usefulness of spaming the pages, the only ones affected by the revised status of pages are unregistred or unlogged user. If working as expected most active users will be granted the flag in ~30 days, that makes the rest of the Wikibookians needing the flag having to do some extra work or just wait out that timespan.

This is the problem of this request. The issue created by advancing users that are too recent to the project (unknown and probably without knowledge), working on the good faith principle, all requests from Wikibookians sharing this characteristics should therefore all be dinned, if not it would extremely unfair to exclude any user that requests it (see Request by keithonearth ) and it would ultimately remove any of what I perceive are the only benefits the revision system brings to Wikibooks, reinforcing participation and reducing abusive actions... --Panic (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. However, the sighting you seem to be referring to was KristianMolhave's - mine did not appear in the stable version of the Nanotechnology wikibook's title page until several days later. Although the flagged revision system certainly operates much smoother on books with an active community of contributers, for those such as Nanotechnology it serves more as a barrier to entry than a protection against vandalism.

More to the point, the very first guideline listed on this site is the universal maxim of wiki editing: be bold - Permission to make improvements isn't required. Yet as it stands, I may only be bold in improving this wiki in a limited sense. Many completed pages of the nanotech wikibook will remain orphans, for example, until I am given permission to simply add them to the index. Perhaps it is a trivial thing, but then again, I am only asking for a trivial and ultimately inevitable promotion that I might fix it. — Howard Beale (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Question Would anyone object to simply de-sighting the page(s) in question? Off hand I'm not sure there's even more than one page involved; a small sample of pages from the book seem to all be unreviewed except for the main page. Since Panic seems to have done the first review of that page, presumably good etiquette would require his agreeing to the idea (I suspect he won't have a problem with it, do you, Panic?), but with only one page involved, it would only be very slightly tedious (de-sighting each reviewed version of the page, presumably in chronological order from earliest to latest). Then the page would show as having never been reviewed, and all edits to it would immediately become the default version for unregistered users. As long as there's going to be someone around to undo vandalism promptly, I for one would have no objection to this. And that would solve the actual problem without requiring a manual promotion to editor. --Pi zero (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an absolutely fine solution to me. -- Howard Beale (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor status does the same thing as reviewer but doesn't apply pages rated at the highest level. Since Nanotechnology pages are rated at the base rating, editor status will be sufficient for the purposes described above. Active books have less of a need for flagged revisions since they will be patrolled more often. Flagged revisions help to reduce the effect of vandalism on inactive books. Even those who are logged in can choose to see the latest sighted revision and not the latest edit. Editor status is "no big deal" and so I am granting that in lieu of the initial request of reviewer (headline changed to reflect this). All actions are logged and if it were necessary this flag could be removed. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 17:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Howard Beale (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arlen22 ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (editor)

I am wondering if I could have editor status. It would be very useful. Thanks. Arlen22 (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Shii ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Editor)

To continue my work on Israeli History. Shii (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I'm surprised you didn't get it automatically already. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Autopromotion currently requires some 10 edits spaced at least 2 days apart (down from the initial configuration, which required 15 edits at least 3 days apart). Shii probably would have been autopromoted within from a few days to a week, depending on usage pattern. --Pi zero (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Download ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Rollback)

I'd like to have the rollback flag to make editing and reverting vandalism on WikiBooks easier. I already have access to the tool on the English Wikipedia, along with over 20,000 edits. Thanks, -download ׀ sign! 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on: But you have less than 20 edits on Wikibooks and it doesn't look like any were to fight vandalism. If you're not using Undo, would you use Rollback? The timing of this request seems off to me. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather new here, but I would use rollback properly. If it's not proper to request rollback here at such an early time, feel free to retract my request.  :) -download ׀ sign! 01:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Granting Rollbacker because you have it on Wikipedia would seem, to me, to set a bad precedent. There is a place to request global rollbacker privileges. Only you can retract your request. My two cents: I think you'd be better off asking for Editor at this time. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 02:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - activity on Wikibooks is what counts for getting rollback on Wikibooks. FWIW, I wouldn't recomment requesting global rollback at this time either.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Iwatchaltonbrown ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Administrator)

I'd like to be an admin. Lately, some people have been putting some unwanted pictures on my talk page, and also, I think I could really help the Cookbook if I was an admin. I've made many edits (I lost track) and corrected misinformation on the Cookbook. --Iwatchaltonbrown

Oppose Not convinced by your contributions to the Cookbook that you are able to maintain a NPOV, which is an important Wikibooks policy, or that you have corrected misinformation to the Cookbook. For example "thanks for butchering it grilling and braising aren't barbecuing" when attempts were made to make a page more neutral, saying that "chili powder isn't hot at all", "People often use boiling to cook pork ribs quickly, albeit yet mushy and flavorless", "there isnt anything called a peck in store bought ketchup theres no cloves no allspice no dry mustard no pepper and its corn syrup not sugar]", etc. The last leaves me wondering where your contributions are coming from (as well as what store brought ketchup has to do with that page, store brought ketchup was not mentioned anywhere). --darklama 01:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll try to make my edits better. --Iwatchaltonbrown

Oppose - Sorry, I don't feel that you are really a part of the community. I haven't seen you helping new users, participating in community discussions, or really doing anything beyond your edits in the Cookbook. I don't mean to degrade what you're doing (though it may not be perfect), but administrators need to be well-versed in what goes on inside the community. At a minimum, I'd expect to see some activity with VFD or in the reading rooms helping new users.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 11:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

While I normally would have no problem with someone editing in one area, the contributions raised by Darklama are concerning. Also you don't need adminship to deal with unwanted pictures, unless you plan to start using the banhammer (A Very Bad Thing). Come back with more experience and I will probably support you. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Electro ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Editor)

I would like to request Editor status for myself. I have made quite a few contributions to Blender 3D: Noob to Pro and would like to resume doing so, along with having the privilege of sighting edits, so I can sight some edits in obscure pages, as well as making my own edits available to the public quickly. Please consider my request. --Electro (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. You should have editor privs now. Thanks for your contributions to Wikibooks! --Jomegat (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff Plourde ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Reviewer)

I have had a Wikibooks account for some time now. Although I have been forced by real life commitments to be sporadically active, I believe that I can be invaluable to Wikibooks as a reviewer. Inspection of the user list reveals that only three users have this bit. While all three appear to be active, there is simply too much work. The oldest page on unreviewed pages dates back to December 2007, a time period I consider to be far to great. On outdated reviewed pages, the oldest page has been waiting for 58 days. These timeframes pose a serious inconvenience to good users, who are stuck looking at an ugly gray unreviewed sticker indefinitely. By granting me reviewer status, I would be able to help clear out what appears to be a massive backlog.

With regards to my English skills, I have consistently scored in the advanced range on any standardized test I have taken. Last year, I took AP English Literature and Composition, qualifying for college credit. When coupled with my five year experience as an administrative assistant, I believe that this shows I have the skills necessary to judge composition.

As to quality, I am a voracious reader, reading everything from caselaw books to technical manuals. I am privileged in that my family's personal library (5,000+) includes authoritative texts on many subjects, which I could use as a baseline when reviewing for quality and comprehension.

By making me a reviewer, I will be able to assist the other users in decreasing the turnaround time for reviews which will make Wikibooks more accurate and accessible to all. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment You already have editor status, which should allow you to take care of the majority of the pages on that list, with the exception of any that are rated at the featured level of quality. Only a reviewer could sight those pages. That's about the only difference between an editor and a reviewer. Also keep in mind that any administrator also has the privileges associated with a reviewer, even if they're not explicitly in the group. So you should actually be able to help pare down that list already. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct, but there are many featured pages which are still awaiting a quality review. I can only sight these pages, not rate their quality. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support He makes a convincing case and has done good work here. --Jomegat (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Geoff has made many good contributions to First Aid, which is a featured book. Many of those pages are rated with the featured level of quality and he cannot review them without the reviewer flag. Providing him with this ability will be giving a helpful contributor the tools he needs to reduce the burden on others and his contributions show that he is responsible. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This request was made at my suggestion & since there is some agreement to do this already, consider it Done.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you everyone who supported this nomination. I will not forget your trust and mandate. My talk page is open to any and all featured book requests. Please feel free to ask me to review any of them! Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kayau ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Editor)

I am not sure whether this is right because I am a newbie here. I just want to jump the gun and review some Wikijunior books. I have contributed significantly to English Grammar Worksheets, and I also have some contributions to geometry/triangles and Maths worksheets. I won't mind if I am told to hang on, like Download was. Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 12:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Download was requesting rollback privileges, while editor privileges are normally automatically granted unless you request them sooner or request them because they don't automatically get assigned. Therefore, the bar to be met is lower for editor. I will follow Jomegat's example with Electro above and grant this request immediately considering your contributions. You certainly have enough edits, but it just hasn't been granted automatically yet because you're just short of a month since your first edit. I have no worries that you'll go around vandalizing Wikijunior, so I believe that granting this will allow you to make productive edits to Wikijunior and have them appear to the public immediately. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting editor privileges is not supposed to be a big deal, and is left to the discretion of an administrator. I won't hesitate to grant that right when requested as long as I can tell that the user is not here to make mischief. --Jomegat (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thenub314 ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Administrator)

Closed as successful. After a 9-day span, I think it's clear Thenub314 has the trust of the community. Thanks for your offer to help as an administrator.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

When I think of Thenub314, I am reminded of myself. We have had similar goals, namely the categorization of pages and a general cleaning up of organization in the wiki. I have gotten the distinct feeling from his requests for book renaming, page deletion, and editing of protected pages over the past months that we've been working on cleaning up that he is being held back from his full potential to assist. I've ended up handling many pages he's labeled for history merges or speedy deletions and I have to say he's been spot-on nearly every time. Beyond that, his contributions to mathematics books are significant and he has participated extensively in the reading room and in votes for deletion. From the discussion of bookshelves and subjects alone one can see his concern for the optimum operation of Wikibooks and the ramifications of administrator actions. His acceptance of a nomination is below. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 16:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Any user willing to step up and wield the mop well is a gift from the Almighty. Granting this nomination will free up other administrators from having to handle this user's requests, and prevent him from becoming frustrated, either with lack of ability or length of response times. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I gladly accept nomination. Thenub314 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support As per Geoff. --Jomegat (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support per nomination. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support because the tools could be useful and the nominee is trustworthy and has relevant experience. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Support, quick spot check on latest 500 contribs showed no issues. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sigma 7 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Sigmabot ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Bot)

I want to rename on Abstract algebra to Abstract Algebra and its 20 subpages, which is most easily automated. To do so, I intend to run movepages.py from pyWikipedia with parameters "-putthrottle:120 -pairs:pairs.txt". Contents of pairs.txt starts with:

Abstract algebra
Abstract Algebra
Abstract algebra/Algebras
Abstract Algebra/Algebras
Abstract algebra/Authors
Abstract Algebra/Authors

I will still need to use AWB or otherwise make more manual changes (e.g. recatting Category:Abstract algebra to {{subject}}. It may technically be easier doing it all by hand, but using a bot is less prone to making changes in only some of the pages. --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I suggest a trial period to make sure that the bot programming is usable. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm testing it with just three page moves. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Page moves are actually failing:

• Abstract algebra -> Abstract Algebra failed because the destination page already exists. This doesn't fail if done manually on my main account, and there are no other pages already occupying the destination.
• Abstract algebra/Algebras -> Abstract Algebra/Algebras and Abstract algebra/Authors -> Abstract Algebra/Authors failed due to permission issues. Based on the output of the stock pyWikipedia script, it looks like it should work without problem.

As such, the trial for this single task is inconclusive. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Skirted procedure by using my main account, but it seems to work as intended. Ready to move the otherpages with the bot account when you are. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment . The logs haven't been very crowded. If it is only for ~26 pages (in the same namespace for that single task) I don't see a problem with running it on your own account after a warning, or are you opened to accept bot jobs requests from other Wikibookians ? --Panic (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was a bot account originally intended for preventing anons from adding self-important entries within the annual dates, but another bot handled that task instead. If a bot job is necessary, I can take it, but it wouldn't be running 24/7 (as required for anti-vandalism). --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to break it in, I have an outstanding request in place for Mike's bot on his talk page if you want to take care of it before he can get to it. It involves title casing a book with 1,060 subpages and renaming templates used within the pages. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the script to support renaming entire books and their subpages rather than using a pregenerated list of words. I'm testing it out on Abstract algebra, but if you want something on par with Opening theory in chess, I would only do it if the bot flag is set. I can still use AWB to adjust templates or categories, however. --Sigma 7 (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are comfortable with the bot's ability, then I Support this account gaining the flag. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 01:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Conditionally, for a short term, with full support once the bot has been tested. Geoff Plourde (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think we need a bit more documentation at meta:Help:Moving a page#Automating multiple page moves. If I known admins could already rename an entire book, I would have just focused on link cleanup/changes. --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

That's only up to 500 subpages. For books like the one I'm requesting a rename of, with thousands of subpages, an admin can't easily do that. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff Plourde ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (rollback)

Closed as successful Good enough - all done. Thanks. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 12:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As I continue to work down the list of unreviewed pages and outdated reviewed pages, I have come across a few instances of vandalism. Unfortunately, real life commitments limit my activity online. Each time I have to stop and go through the undo process takes up time that I could put to use reviewing pages. In the short time since I received the reviewer bit, the average wait for anonymous edits to be reviewed has dropped from 144 to 34 hours. The average for outdated pages has dropped to 18 from around 50 hours. With the rollback bit, I am confident that I could bring these times down even further and perform more reviews in the limited time I have available. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support --Sigma 7 (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support For me, rollback is a "lower" privilege than reviewer - if we trust Geoff to review (and I do) then he can be trusted to rollback. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Chazz (talk) 06:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Support When reviewing a page where there's been a single edit and it's obvious vandalism, rollback can be a useful tool to combine with reviewer. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Owain.davies ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (editor)

I believe I meet the criteria for editor as set out (over 100 main space edits, confirmed email, 10 different pages etc.) but do not appear to have editor permissions.

Regards Owain.davies (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Done  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Moby-Dick4000 ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Reviewer)

I single-handedly wrote the below five recipes for the cookbook:

• cookbook:Red paella

• cookbook:Arroz negro

• cookbook:Seafood paella

• cookbook:Spaghetti alla puttanesca

• cookbook:Spaghetti alle vongole in rosso

Also, I rewrote Valencian paella and I've contributed to several others.

Support A long editing history since March on Cookbook recipes and a great deal of time spent on each recipe ensuring quality. Hopefully, though, if this is granted, this user will use the tool to keep Special:OldReviewedPages to a minimum as well as reviewing recipes shown not to be copy-pastes from somewhere else. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My questions regarding editing

I just checked my log and it says that I was auto promoted to editor but the time stamp indicates it happened before I made the above request. What's the difference between a contributor and an editor? Can an editor review books? Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

See Wikibooks:Reviewer#Editors and reviewers. --Panic (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I should be able to review non-featured books and pages according to this link . However, I tried that and I don't seem to have the ability. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong. I read through a page, made a small edit and saved it. However, I didn't see the reviewed flag on the page. Something is obviously amiss. However, even if I am an editor, I'm still interested in becoming a Reviewer because it allows me to review featured books and pages. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To verify your flags, go to your Wikibook preferences and see in "User profile" -> "Member of groups:" you should have the two flags both "...Editors, Reviewers,..." .

To review pages you go bottom of the page you wish to review and do it. I think auto-review was disabled for now. --Panic (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I followed your instructions and I figured out how to review a page as an editor and I verified my status on my preferences page. However, I don't see the eye-shaped reviewed icon on the page I reviewed. Why not? Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I never noticed that icon, can it depend on the Wikibooks skin you are using? (if not, hopefully someone else will reply to you on that point). --Panic (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the icon either. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The "eye" does not show on a reviewed page. It shows on pages that will always show the latest edit, such as the Main Page where flagged revisions has been modified. Cookbook:Paella recipes, which you recently reviewed does not have an eye icon, or a circle-bar icon either because the latest sighted revision is the one shown. Should a page not be reviewed, such as How to Write a Good Book for Children, the circle-bar icon will show. That icon also appears if edits have been made since the last sighted revision was approved. You can get an eye if you go to your preferences under Stability and change to the simple user interface, which removes the bar across the width of the page and forces an icon showing unreviewed, draft, or sighted in the top-right corner. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help regarding my status as an editor. I appreciate it. Also, please remember to leave a comment above regarding my request to be promoted to a reviewer. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Heldergeovane ( talk |  email |  contribs | logs) (Editor)

I would like to have the 'editor' permission. ;-) Helder (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you not meet the requirements for being automatically granted editor tools? If you can, why are you unwilling to wait until the system grants you these automatically? What do you need them for?

If you consider the system too sluggish in granting these tools, please let us know because then we should reconsider the criteria. --Swift (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Heldergeovane has fewer than 100 edits, despite edits widely distributed over the past two years. Down the road when they have 100 edits, if their editing habits stay true to form, number of recent edits could cause further delay. --Pi zero (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well... Althoug I'm not usually creating content here, I often use some Wikibooks texts as basis for translations to Portuguese Wikibooks (where I'm an active author). When I do that, I add them to my whatchlist and can review edits in these english texts (mainly of Mathematics) for you... I don't know if the system should be more fast (but if there are other "so sporadic" editors, I think yes... ;) ) Helder (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've granted this as I've been told it's no big deal and I see nothing troubling about the user's contributions up to this point, though they are few in number. Reviewing pages can be done in the background without editing any of them if that is this user's preference. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Helder (talk) 12:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of permissions

[edit] Administrator access