I admittedly don't have as much experience in reverting vandalism as some of my fellow Wikipedians, but I remove it whenever I come across it. I have recently stumbled upon Huggle, and wish to use it for removing and preventing vandalism, and possibly patrolling for it actively instead of taking a 'whenever I find it' approach. Yadaman (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been reverting vandalism for a while now. I started manually and then found Twinkle, and now I want to try using Huggle. Blue Rasberry 22:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30 seconds after I requested, plus you fixed my failed attempt to enter my own username. Thanks three times for your faith, fix, and fastness. Blue Rasberry 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to use HG and eradicate vandalism Amol Bhave 14:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Not done. Sorry, but you don't have enough experience. Please spend a couple weeks fighting vandalism and spam and I'll be happy to reconsider this request. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been using Twinkle quite a bit to revert vandalism, but it doesn't always work as expected, and can take a long time with large pages. I understand "true" rollback is faster and more reliable, and would like to try it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this so I can use my time online more effectively, hopefully revert more vandalism 5 albert square (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping to use my patrol time much more efficiently with Huggle. First page string of undo vs single user stemmed from cleanup of a disruption/canvassing issue that later turned into an ANI. Typical history farther back. Most always leave comments and use AGF templates on user pages often. ♪daTheisen(talk) 01:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to try out Huggle at home for more efficient RCP work. I almost always provide revert comments, even when it *is* obvious vandalism. I'm already using Twinkle for this purpose, but I want to see if Huggle works better for my purposes. ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working a while without this tool, but it seems that it could help though: undoing more than one edits, which are not the latest edits of an article, causes problems. As far as I am concerned, this tool could sort it out. I am sorry for some non-serious edit summaries. LYKANTROP ✉ 21:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done (again) Historil issues noted. Looks okay to me. Pedro : Chat 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In order to use Huggle, and to undo vandalism faster. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how this revert was an obvious piece of vandalism requiring no explanation? Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The (R.I.P.) was unnecessary, as WP:NOTMEMORIAL states "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others.", hence placing (R.I.P.) is not appropriate. The other part was reverted, because I couldn't find a WP:RS that had the subject as a MTV VJ. It is possible that I hit enter by accident when reverting it (I use Twinkle), as I usually provide edit summaries for reverts (see my contributions), minus some edits that were test edits, pure original research, or complete vandalism. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done It was the only oddity I found in your contribs, and you seem to realise a summary would be appropriate here - I wanted to see how you'd react to the question. Consequently have confidence that you would not misuse rollback Fritzpoll (talk) 08:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to make the anti-vandalism work a bit more efficient. - Peter Deer (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Edit warring block from 2007 doesn't concern me. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an embarrassing lapse of judgment on my part when I first started editing actively. I assure you that is not my current policy. Thank you for the addition. Peter Deer (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I frequently revert vandalism; rollback would allow me to work more quickly, and avoid edit conflicts. - Andrea105 (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I occasionally do some vandalism-reverting here on Wikipedia. Undo and Twinkle have been working slowly (slower than normal) for me in the past few weeks. Chase wc91 23:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would help me in the quest to get Wikipedia ready "real soon now". Much quicker than the undo method i've been using all this time. SteelersFanUK06ReplyOnMine! 20:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually while patrolling Recent Changes on English Wikipedia I'm forced use default undo tool to revert vandalisms. I'm sysop on Polish Wikipedia so I use rollback very often there and I know how useful it is. Trivelt (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to update some of the citations on the Quran article Bshama (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bshama. This isn't the place to ask for pages to be unprotected. If you want to request unprotection, please go to WP:RPP. However, it seems this page is permanently semiprotected so you need to become an autoconfirmed user before you can edit it. Valley2city‽ 17:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although it's unlikely I'd ever actually use it, it seems the permission is required for Huggle to function. K10wnsta (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you won't use it why do you request it? Huggle requires rollback, yes, but with no prior reversion of vandalism how are we able to know whether you know what consists of vandalism and what doesn't? Please use some manual alternatives for now (if not undo) - WP:TW or any of these tools and return in a week or so. -- Mentifisto 23:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]