Hello. Just for a better patrol from the history pages. I have a hundred patrol edition on this project where I use Twinkle. I still have experience on other wikis as a rollbacker or reviewer: frwiki (other tool), wd, enWB. I am also part of SWMT. Thank you beforehand. Cordially. Eihel (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For reviewing admins this maybe interesting. Calling me defaming them and spreading falsehood where they themselves totally misread the applicable policies and being extremely combative to a local and soon global sysop due to trivial matters really don't go well with me.--Cohaf (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On enWB and following these guidelines, one of the criteria indicates that one can make 99 contributions, then return 2 days later and make only one edition to automatically obtain the status of reviewers (100 editions in total, 8 spaced by 2 days). In the request made on this project, Cohaf believes that it takes several weeks to obtain this status. But here we are on another wiki and the rules are still different. The request resulted in obtaining the right, despite the errors commented by Cohaf about me that have no connexion here. He begins by apologizing for his mistakes, but seems irritated. Chase a contributor on other projects seems to me to be extremely more combative than I am. Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, please read the guidelines "8 edits are spaced 2 or more days apart from each other (which takes at least 14 days, if you edit every 2 days)." and "Have a registered account that is at least 30 days old, ". This is enwikibooks reviewer guidelines. Your reading is wrong as pointed out by local sysop Leaderboard in that link. And for here, rollback requires many many changes, which I note you only have 100. The threshold can be lower if you have relevant experience, but I'm not seeing rollback except on wikidata and enwikibooks, which is just a few days ago. I apologise for any miscommunication but I'm not chasing editors, we just cross paths in several projects. In addition, at enwikibook, you called me "having 8 months of existence" and etc. In addition, applying so many rights, the patroller one below, seems really HATC which I hope it isn't. Further signs are you says the rules are different but did you read the rules properly, it states that many changes are needed unless you have relevant experience elsewhere. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cohaf and Vermont: In your sentence, there is "if you edit every 2 days". Notice the IF, this formula is just an example. I repeat here the key phrase: "8 edits are spaced 2 or more days". Simply, Leaderboard tells me that it took me over thirty days to acquire the right, even that I took my time and that I went up to 200 changes to wait for these 2 days apart. You can see that I didn't stop my edits at the 99th modification, but at the 200th approximately (I even wrote it on my Talk Page). I only invested since the beginning of this month on enWB, but before I had only 5 changes of more than 30 days. The changes are counted since the first change on a project, QED. But this only makes 5 editions out of 100 to get the right, which is the same thing. As I already explained on enWB about your writings, I tell myself that these trifles pursue me for nothing, for good reason. When I tell you that what you write is wrong, do not steer yourself (summaries for example). For your information, I already revoke here, then on frwiki, enwb, enwiki, wd, meta, mswiki and for a long time, either with the right on the project either with revertdiff or Twinkle (global). I may forget it, but every time you see the tag (TW) for example, there is a revert. When you write "this maybe interesting", it's not for my good from one project to another, especially if your claims are flawed. Also, do not go after the new ones. That's why I'm not going further and hoping it will be the same for you. --Eihel (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now. Came back a day ago from a long stretch of inactivity, currently a very low edit count, and concerns raised above. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that Cohaf is not, to my knowledge, following Eihel here. Cohaf is an active editor on this project. This tension is unnecessary. Vermont (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this "tension" IMO is that they are not apt with how to put their points across, something also seen on Atcovi talkpage link. I knew they meant no malice.--Cohaf (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now. Came back a day ago from a long stretch of inactivity, currently a very low edit count, and concerns raised above. Thanks, Vermont (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
