Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for permissions

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Armbrust (talk | contribs) at 01:34, 1 September 2013 ({{User:KingpinBot/override|d}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Autopatrolled

(add request • view requests)
Shortcuts

User:AfadsBad

Although I've only created 26 new articles, they're being sporatically patrolled because they're obscure; there's no reason to have them in a list of over 12000 unpatrolled articles when no one will ever patrol them. If patrolling matters, mine don't need it. AfadsBad (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Patrolling matters. That said, these stubs are indeed very easy to patrol and would not take more than a few seconds of patroller time to review them. I therefore strongly suggest you post a complaint about their not being patrolled at WT:NPP - your feedback is essential if we're to anything about the critical lack of experience of some patrollers. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with the quality, notability, sourcing, or any other aspect of any of my article contributions to Wikipedia. So, what benefit is there to having my articles added to a 12,000 450-day long list of unpatrolled articles? --AfadsBad (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no compelling reason to override the recommendation. Please see WT:NPP. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Keep letting my articles sit in the queue for two months, while no one bothers to check them. --AfadsBad (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the faith AfadsBad. Come back after creating a higher number of articles. Thanks. Wifione Message 05:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I see no reason not to give you the right, you articles are short but meet all Wikipedia requirements for creating articles. It's matter of common sense, we are not bureaucracy. I'll gladly assign the right if Kudpung and Wifione agree. I don't think it will damage the encyclopedia - quite opposite. Thanks for your good fork AfadsBad. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In AfadsBad's case it would probably be OK, but I wouldn't want the hat collectors who consider it a trophy to get the wrong idea and use it as a precedent (which does happen occasionally). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but this editor doesn't seem to be the case, his/her userpage is plain, filled with thoughtful reflections on Wikipedia and with working plans, not with childish icons. Also AfadsBad's communication here suggests s/he is not a "hat collector". Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vejvančický, I'm ok with you giving the right to the editor in case you trust the editor. Although 50 articles is a suggested limit, the figure is only a suggestion. I would not have given the right to an editor who has spent just above two months on the project. I wouldn't consider this editor a 'brand new' editor, but would have wished to see the editor develop more articles, and perhaps gain more experience of our editing policies and guidelines. I'll leave this to your judgement. Kind regards. Wifione Message 14:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would trust them but I think I generally AGF more than most of editors around here - I would just watch and help if needed (Idon't think the issue is a big deal). The "50 articles" recommendation is in my opinion oversimplifying but I have to agree that your argument ('brand new' editor) is valid and could be decisive. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, no one is criticizing my articles. If you want me to gain more experience, then tell me where I am going wrong--my articles are not getting any criticism that indicates someone needs to approve their being on Wikipedia. They are notable, they are encyclopedic, they are well-sourced, they are usefully linked, they are categorized, they are not copyright violations. I can't even argue against the crime of others' collecting hats that are entirely unrelated to the point I made here; my articles are being ignored, probably because the topics are obscure, and, as there are no problems with them, and the list is incredibly long, there is no need to place my articles in the list. If someone had similar qualities and wanted this hat, it would clear articles out of the queue to give it to them, and that would be a net gain for creating an encyclopedia. I read other editors's posts who requested this permission. When it was denied there were specific problems with their articles, or it was editors who had only a few edits. There are no specific problems with my articles. I write plant articles. They go on a list and are checked by other plant editors; or I fill in existing red links. Putting my articles in this queue is not gaining any value for Wikipedia, it's just being done out of bureaucracy, and it seems that if one reason is given and then set aside, another block will come up.
Please close this request. It has become just another means of criticizing me for nothing I've done wrong, a neverending story on Wikipedia. I will use AFC to create new articles. --AfadsBad (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done WP:COMMONSENSE. Anyone who disagrees, please let me know here or at my talk page. Thank you for your contributions Afads. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled&oldid=571018262"