Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NerdyScienceDude (talk | contribs) at 13:35, 7 June 2010 (→‎User:NerdyScienceDude: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Autoreviewer (add request)

Shortcut




User:Ghmyrtle

I've created well over 300 articles, none of which have ever been deleted. About 40 have reached DYK (which I didn't nominate for until I'd started over 200 articles - hence the small number!) Some of my early articles lacked proper referencing, but they are all being improved over time. Over 22,000 edits in total. Never thought about having this status, but am happy to do so if it helps the project. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... (shuffles embarrassedly away) Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:paste

I reasonably regularly write articles where I see a need and have done about 160 so far with in total about 15.300 edits, I don't think I've had a new article deleted and I've certainly never been blocked or anything like that. It would be good to know that my new articles were trusted to be suitable for the project. Many thanks. -Paste Let’s have a chat. 17:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 177 articles is impressive. I took a sample and they all looked like notable subjects at no risk of deletion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Derek R Bullamore

I have been a sub editor since December 2005 (25,000 + edits), and was originally granted autoreview status. However, at the back end of last year I fell foul of copyvio, and the status was withdrawn. Since then I have created over 50 new articles, a number of which have been BLP, getting over 20 of the new articles to the DYK page. Could I have autoreviewer granted again please, to save new patrollers time and effort? Thank you, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, for the simple reason that I could not remember who had done so. Do I need to ask him first ?
Derek R Bullamore (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was 6 months ago, but it would be polite to ask Nuke for a comment. I'll leave him a note pointing him here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If none of the pages you created recently have problems, I would be fine with regranting autoreviewer to you. Do you happen to have a list of the pages you have created since December? NW (Talk) 15:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do - they are listed on my user page (along with the DYKs). Thanks, Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a random sample of those articles and they seem decent, certainly no ringing alarm bells, so I'd be inclined to grant it, but I'll leave the final decision to Courcelles, who may wish to do more checking. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've asked for Moonriddengirl's opinion, and I'd go with whatever she says, as she has seemingly taken point on this matter in CCI. I'm sorry this is such a drama, Derek. Courcelles (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand - it is not a really big issue to me, but I have tried really hard to be whiter than white in the past six months or so. What the hell - "Whatever Will Be, Will Be". Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think Derek has done a very good job of working on the issue — indeed, an impressive one. I'd say that if a spot check didn't find any problems, he should be good to go. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I wanted to hear. Quite happy to close this with;  Done. Courcelles (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone. Derek R Bullamore (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Markvs88

Hello, I tend to monitor a lot of pages for the Connecticut Wikiproject, and have created about a score of articles... but we need a lot more, and may as well have them Autoreview'd. -Thanks, Markvs88 (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I evaluate an autoreviewer request, I only look at the BLP's- and of the 21 articles (out of the 75 guideline) you've written, there's only one BLP, Brad Savage, which completely lacks reliable sourcing. This right doesn't do anything for you, it only takes new pages you create out of the New Page Patrol list, and while I'm not wedded to the 75 article guidelines... for now,  Not done. Courcelles (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


User:NerdyScienceDude

I am requesting the autoreviewer permission because I have created several articles, and I want to reduce the load for our new page patrollers. I also have several DYK credits, with my best article being SM UB-50, which got over 5,000 hits at DYK. Thank you. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've only created thirteen articles, against the guidance of 75. But my concern is that none of them are BLP's, with the sourcing for a few of them on the weaker side. Hit my talk page when you get to 25 articles created and I'll take another look, but, for now,  Not done. Courcelles (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLPs aren't my type of article, just to let you know. Thanks anyway. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 13:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled&oldid=366559368"