Arbustum has created many well-sourced and well-formatted articles about Polish topics that do not need to be reviewed. Autopatrol is appropriate. Agtx (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am nowhere near a prolific article creator, only 20 so far. I have however noticed I do generate a lot of new pages, mostly user talk pages when warning users of, whatever it might be. I thought I'd ask for the bit to help the new page patrollers at any rate. Mlpearc (open channel)19:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{nd}} Thanks for your willingness to help in reducing the workload on New page patrollers. The tool have no effects on your ability to warn vandals or other editors and You do not need to be autopatrolled to patrol new pages. The tool will only allow you to patrol your own newly created pages, thereby reducing the burdens on New Page Patollers. Nevertheless, the flag is usually granted to prolific article creator who had demonstrated a core understanding of the basic Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Unfortunately, you had only created 12 valid articles (apart from redirect and disambiguation pages). A suggested standard is the prior creation of 50 valid articles not including redirect and disambiguation pages. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£21:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL seriously!? Wikicology you probably should not decline requests when you are physically unable to approve them and have had the right removed from your own account in the past, nor should you speak like they don't know what they're doing to veteran editors when you have a tenth of the editcount and half a decade less experience with Wikipedia. Mlpearc, user-right granted with enthusiasm. You have been around for many many years and are a very trusted user, whose page creations are clearly beyond the need to automatic reviewing by new-page-patrollers. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I only want to reduce the burden on patrolling admin for obvious cases but since it seemed practically not a good idea to decline request, I will adhere to your advice. Cheers! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£22:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware that 50 new articles is the recommended amount to be autopatrolled, and I've only created 14. However, I create lots of redirects as requested at WP:AFC/R, and each one of these requires patrolling- this seems like a waste of time for someone to have to do. The articles I have made have all been fine and legitimate, as have all the redirects I have made, and allowing me to be autopatrolled would mean that patrollers could instead focus on patrolling actually new articles, rather than the redirects I'm creating. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, the 50 article requirement does not include redirects which hasn't been met at this time. I could see possibly granting this early around 35-40 new articles, but unfortunately not at 14. Nakon22:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, someone had it done with only a few more articles than me the other day, and I figured there was no harm in trying. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I regularly create pages on rugby topics (over 100 in the main article space now and more than 400 in total). Articles are always referenced. Pages that have been deleted are mostly G7 where I have requested it myself, e.g. Canada Women's Sevens after finding that an existing page had been created under a variant name that was not well linked to related article topics. Requesting autopatrolled rights to reduce the patrol workload. Ham105 (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment - An extraneous header was removed from this request. — MusikBot talk 19:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
(I feel old, jk :P ) Mlpearc (open channel) 22:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Not done, the 50 article requirement does not include redirects which hasn't been met at this time. I could see possibly granting this early around 35-40 new articles, but unfortunately not at 14. Nakon 22:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
