" I regret that I must inform you that your request for the rollback permission has been denied. You can discover why by checking the archives at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Denied/January 2009#Mikaey.   

Joseph Stalin
My text wasn't edited, it was reversed.  I was trying to improve the article by removing POV and making neater summaries.  
Look further back at my edit history and you'll see my edits were heavy rewrites to flimsy sections, not reverts done to annoy people.  Also, nobody else has really done anything substantial for this article for quite some time.  In the months I've been working on it, other writers have only been adding snippets or links.  
So... if I added extensive justifications to my edits, they might pass?  People complain that this article is biased, and I'm trying to FIX that.  Also, I replaced the lead image of Stalin with a photograph, but Tocino thinks the previous painting is better.  A painting, especially a flattering one made for propaganda, is inferior to an actual photograph, especially on as sharp as the one I've put in (you can even see his pockmarks).  

Hello
I have made sure that I have not violated the 3RR rule because I have been suspended for this in the past. I have waited patiently for a day to pass before I could add the better, more famous image of Stalin (which was on the article before Kurzon came along). Unfortunately, Kurzon has taken a different tactic and in the past couple of hours he has reverted three times without an edit summary to two different editors.  

 Late Bloomer 

I came across the AfD on Late bloomer, which seems interesting & worth keeping, but had no references. They are not really needed, since it is a summary-type article with links to fully-referenced articles on the people mentioned, but I started doing the mechanical job of adding references. Then I saw your note that the article seems to have degraded from earlier versions. In what way? Don't want to continue adding refs if an earlier version would be a better starting point...   

 Query about an ""official page"" 

Hi Mikaey, 
Yesterday I attempted to post a page on here on behalf of an organisation for which I am currently working as an intern (FDC). Only problem was that we have a specific and official way of saying things which happens to be that of the website and several primary, so I just referenced there. In your review you stated ""We cannot accept copyrighted content taken from web sites or printed sources."" There are several similar non-profit organisations which have pages on Wikipedia with their official statements published too, I was just wondering if copyright still applies when you are the authorised party? Is there any way I can have this article published without changing the words away from our official statement? Also if I just change the words briefly so it is different from the website but still conveys the message of our organisational profile can it then be published? 
Any help would be much appreciated as I am pretty stuck with where to go on this.
Thank you so much in advance
  

The user here is talking about this page from the AfC queue.  I declined it because at least one section (About the FDC) seemed to be a word-for-word copy from their website.  Notwithstanding any other issues with this article, would someone like to weigh in on the issue of the text's copyright status?  If the organization agrees to let the text be published under the GFDL, would he be good?  Thanks,   
If the organization releases the text as GFDL through an OTRS email, there should be no problem with the ""copyrights""; but the article as a whole has too much WP:COI and how they wrote their phone numbers and email addresses looks spamy. The article dosen't say anything about notability of the company either. Oh you were asking only about copyrights..sorry. An OTRS email would be sufficient. The relevant guide for getting the permissions is here [[User:Unpopular Opinion|