Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants/Old Requests/2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2017

[edit]

Please add me to the list of those editors contributing to reducing the backlog. Thanks all!DavidWestT (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC) DavidWestT (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Only 396 mainspace edits, please come back with sufficient edit history at least 500 undeleted edits KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 20:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would like to join and take part in this project I have 1600 edits and use Twinkle to monitor new pages. MassiveYR ♠ 17:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by MassiveYR (15:49, 31 March). -- -- -- 22:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add myself. The garmine (talk) 13:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done @The garmine: You do not yet have 500 undeleted edits to articles; you currently have 103. You are welcome to add your name to the list once you meet that threshold, and when you have a good understanding of the Wikipedia policies discussed in the reviewing instructions. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 13:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
/wiae: what do you mean? it says 512 undeleted edits.The garmine (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The garmine: It's the red part of the pie chart halfway down the page in the "Namespace Totals" section that shows you how many edits to articles you have. Right now you're at 105. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 10:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wiae:Understood. Thanks! The garmine (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wiae, how many do I have now? it looks like the pie chart is gone. it also says that my last edit was last year. The garmine (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The garmine:, sometimes the xtools page goes down and isn't accessible. Right now it's back up; looks like you have 247 article contributions. /wiae /tlk 10:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{reply to|Wiae} I get it. i'l be bacck once it says 500! The garmine (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting to join again. The garmine (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not overly inclined. I'm glad that you're learning, but based on your talk page and some questionable edits I've seen recently I won't be adding you. I'm not going to argue if someone else does, but I personally feel you're not quite ready. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac: understood. But next time, can you mention my name? it will speed up my response. The garmine (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac: maybe 1,000 article edits then?☺ The garmine (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now can I join? the logs are backlogged big time. The garmine (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The garmine: checkY Yes, please add yourself to the list -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@There'sNoTime:I'm sorry, what do you mean by "add yourself to the list"? What list, and how? The garmine (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The garmine: It was this list here, but I've added you now -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 14:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@There'sNoTime: Thanks! The garmine (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July

[edit]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August

[edit]

I wanted to add my name to the list, but it seems like I can't. How are you going to get volunteers if they can't join by following the instructions? Please add my name to the list, and consider amending or clarifying the instructions so that they are possible to follow. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done This is exactly how one requests to be added. It's fully-protected because we have had a very large surge of people who are nowhere near qualified, and full protection was (unfortunately) the only way for us to deal with the issue. Hopefully we can reduce the protection level at some point. Primefac (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've also changed the header message to indicate coming here is the correct procedure. Primefac (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please allow access to this platform, to expand my portfolio. Entry-requirements met. –Sb2001 talk page 00:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sb2001, questions for you. First, what do you mean "portfolio"? If you're just looking to be a hat-collector, I suggest looking elsewhere. Second, in looking at your talk page, there are a lot of concerns regarding the MOS guidelines. Will you be declining drafts if they don't meet stylistic guidelines? Primefac (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By expansion of portfolio, I mean move into other areas of WP. I am trying not just to stay around the MoS. The stuff on my talk page is mostly SMcC looking to criticise. I explained to him that I was not aware of the MoS. That is all sorted now. Check my contributions—they are very much centred around bringing articles into MoS-compliance. I would decline a draft based on style, but will offer helpful advice, and correct it myself, if possible. –Sb2001 talk page 01:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I would probably accept the draft, and then make changes to it myself—to bring it in-line with the MoS. This seems like a much more effective solution than simply declining it. And no, I am not a 'hat-collector', as you put it. –Sb2001 talk page 01:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't accusing you, and I apologize if it came across like that. We've had issues with people joining simply to say that they had joined, then doing nothing or (worse yet) doing bad reviews.
    With regards to the MOS question - a draft should never be declined purely on the basis of formatting, so your revised answer pleases me. It takes much less time for someone who knows what they're doing to fix minor style issues than it does for a relative newbie.
    I do encourage you to ask questions of other reviewers if you have them, but for the moment I think your request can be Accepted. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. No need to apologise; my phrasing was a little ... abrupt. –Sb2001 talk page 01:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you added him into the wrong place. -- -- -- 20:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed. -- -- -- 21:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Primefac (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now. I'm sorry but with only 227 mainspace edits in nearly 2 years you don't yet demonstrate sufficient familiarity with current policies. You have already been editing now for three consecutive month, as soon as you have reached 500 new mainspace edits, please ask again and we'll take another look. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to join. I would like to be added to the AFC reviewer list. I have already made 71 contributions to the AFC help desk responding to AFC queries over the past months, and feel ready to review submissions as they come in; thus would love to help with the backlog in this area of Wikipedia as I feel I can contribute. It appears the page is protected, so I am placing this request here. I have met all the requirements. Isingness (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done (I'll consider that an endorsement). Primefac (talk) 15:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Not an endorsement. Will have a second look if no one beats me to it first. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now. While I am glad to see you helping out at the AFC Help Desk, I think a bit more experience in understanding WP:CORPDEPTH may be required, given that two of your contributions about companies were recently deleted at AFD. Do keep helping out, though, since it will give you experience and show us you know what you're doing. Maybe ask again in a couple of months? Primefac (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I did self-delete those once others stated they felt the organizations may not be notable, but happy to work elsewhere. Isingness (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello everybody!
I am looking forward to reducing the AfC backlog and adding myself to the list of participants. Is it okay to add me? Thank you. :Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have done 90 days trial and more than 500 edits to articles and I am extended confirmed, do please add me in this list. Thankyou SahabAliwadia 14:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: You do not have 500 article edits, please come back with sufficient experience. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 14:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September

[edit]
 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting to be added to list; I vastly exceed the numerical requirements and I understand policy. Also, please update instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants which currently states "please add yourself to the active reviewers list below", something I can't do.
--Nanite (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions have been updated again. Legacypac (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you added him into the wrong place. -- -- -- 20:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed by Primefac. Thanks, -- -- -- 20:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done Primefac (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Aguyintobooks:, welcome aboard! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Please read the instructions again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Sorry, we do not accord this tool so that editors can review and pass their own creations or articles they have substantially contributed to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I'd like to be added to the list. I meet the requirements and I've also recently gotten the new page reviewer rights and have been working through that backlog, so I have some experience with reviewing new pages. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Comparatively limited mainspace contributions, although above the 500 limit. Recent articles like this, consisting mostly of a table of contents raise some concerns, as does overall low AfD participation with mixed results and comparatively weak deletion rationales. May recommend a month or two of increased participation in AfD and NPP to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of deletion policy, and likelihood that a draft would survive an AfD nomination. GMGtalk 13:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've started to participate more in AfD, and I've done quite a bit of new page reviewing recently. My CSD record is good, and my edit number is around 4 times the 500 limit. Although some of my new articles are stubs, they still show notability as per wikipedia policies. --Nerd1a4i (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to join. Hello. Please add me to the participants page. I intend, if accepted, to work on the backlog. I have found one article already, which needs an auth tag, and is clearly notable. Thanks. Scope creep (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Long time contributor. Occasionally misses the mark at AfD, but hits is ~80% of the time. Overall, nearly 500 articles created, and only deletion is G7. Already granted Autopatrolled and NPP. Clean block log over 12 years of editing. GMGtalk 14:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for access - I am a long-time editor who is not quite as active as I used to be. However, I love the idea of helping others get their first articles into Wikipedia, or give them guidance to make their first submissions successful when appropriate. Eric (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This user has nearly no AfD participation, and has no participation within the past several years. The single article they have created within the past year has multiple issues and is based solely on the official homepage for the subject. This and previous articles created raise substantial issues with their ability to write in and evaluate WP:NPOV, as well as their understanding of sourcing and notability requirements. GMGtalk 14:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This user has had one declined AfC submission within the past 10 days. GMGtalk 14:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Primefac (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October

[edit]
Reviewing admin please see User_talk:Kudpung/Archive_Jul_2017#AfC name deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Per the above-linked description, consider this a probationary addition and any admin is free to remove them with good reason. Non-admins, please ping me if there are issues. Primefac (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support Caorongjin's request. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly object in light of paid-editing connections and recent activities regarding policy/template changes.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 04:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. While I recognize that KDS is a very good article writer and prolific contributor (and would be a good reviewer), AFC cannot allow a paid editor to be an article reviewer. While I do not think KDS would avoid disclosing any paid work (and would not accept an article for profit), it is the principle of the matter. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - as an admin you could have done this yourself ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I figured it worth asking rather than walking straight in, kicking my shoes off, and making myself comfortable ;) Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support Stinglehammer's request as it will be useful to his work and he works to ensure new articles from university events are up to scratch. Nev1 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stinglehammer, the issue is that you don't meet our primary criteria (500 article edits). Pinging Kudpung for thoughts about exceptions (and potential COI), since clearly there's more to this than just edit counts. Primefac (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons why I think we should wait until the remaining 150 edits have been completed: The recent Pseudopregnancy issue, not so much as an error, but due to an incomplete knowledge of some basic page management procedures, demonstrates that there is still probably a lot more to learn even though 500 edits is a low threshold. Secondly, I don't believe we should make make exceptions; the precedent it would create would generate a lot of 'why them and not me?' arguments of the kind we frequently get at PERM. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now. Primefac (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November

[edit]
Primefac: I will exercise caution when speedying things in draft space, and will only speedy, at least for me, when it meets G13 in WP:SPEEDY. Just because a draft is declined, doesn't mean it won't be considered acceptable in the future. The user still has a right to work on it. I acknowledge I may have been a bit fast when it came to speedying things in the past, but I have learned from my errors, like any good Wikipedians should do. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 17:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not an admin so not deciding anything, but what's with all those G7s in your article creation history? Galobtter (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They were all either drafts or redirects where I realized the subject or target respectively would never achieve notability or they were from the result of a page move where the former name seemed implausible. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 14:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you added him into the wrong place. -- -- -- 21:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed by Primefac. Thank you, -- -- -- 20:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to come aboard and help the cause. I'm a 'newer' editor, but I'm up for lending a hand where I can. I have read the policies and procedures laid out, and I am more than okay with asking questions if I run into something that I don't understand. I look forward to a decision either way. Thanks, and happy editing! - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 21:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done for now, as you do not meet the minimum article edit requirement. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, and I apologize for wasting your time in the matter. I'll be back. :) - NsTaGaTr (Talk) 14:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: As this is just a simple request I have moved it to the requests to join section. Galobtter (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aham Brahmasmi (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Try again when you'll have 500 article edits. -- -- -- 04:18, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Primefac (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December

[edit]
jps (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I'm not overly comfortable granting this. While I know it takes two to tango, your talk page is awash with complaints, concerns, and ANI notices. You added yourself to AFCH back in January but never reviewed any drafts. In short, I'm just not sure why you're interested. Primefac (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a member for a long time. There are tools I use for monitoring. I have been using these permissions before they were unbundled with accounts and have been doing so for seven years before you were a registered editor. Thank you. jps (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you're interested because I'm new and you're not? I'm not trying to be coy, just trying to figure out how your answer fits with my original question; you don't seem to have an interest in the draft space, NPR, or other backlogs, and the last time you were given AFCH access you didn't use it.
For what it's worth, my concern has nothing to do with your tenure or experience, which is quite large, but more the fact that every time your name (in various flavours) comes up, it's generally something negative. But that's also the reason why I'm not declining your request outright; I might have a negative observational bias. Answering my question may alleviate that concern, which was why I asked. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't used the tools in draftspace for sometime because others have in the last year or so, but I do not think that's likely to last forever. My primary work is to implement WP:FRINGE and there are lots of fringe articles that come down the pipe. That's what I use all this for. If you think that there is something negative about my presence, please let me know precisely what it is. Saying that there are AN/I messages on my talkpage is hardly a reason. jps (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be, because besides experience and tenure, AfC reviewing requires a demonstration of communication skills.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're communicating just fine. Don't you? jps (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done low usage in the past plus no real need for the script (I have no idea how this will help with FRINGE), plus Primefac and Kudpung's behavioral concerns are enough for me to be concerned. Reviewing your talk page, I also see several 3RR warnings from this year, which I also weighed when evaluating this request: involvement with new users requires patience, and on the whole, I don't think you have the confidence of the admins who monitor this page regularly that you will interact with new users appropriately. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll take this to WP:AN. You guys are starting to run this like a fiefdom. It's untoward. jps (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ජපස, can you explain how you plan to use this? I think that is the major concern here in addition to the behavioral concerns. The FRINGE thing doesn't really make sense to me and combined with other issues is why I marked this not done. If you could explain it more, I'd be open to another admin adding or doing it myself. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your "behavioral concerns" are a lark. Post diffs if you have any. It's insulting to me that this is being used as an excuse.
As to what I intend, I have created a number of new articles in the past and fully intend to in the future as new topics come up. What's more, moving articles is sometimes necessary as new writers have named legitimate new articles under problematic names. What we have often seen are a number of drafts that have been approved in the past by AfC holders that have problematically promoted fringe theories (sometimes these drafts have been approved in spite of AfDs which have not been addressed). I have seen this developing more and I am working on a system to do more alerts for WP:FTN about this issue. Of course, not all articles that are about new fringe theories should be deleted and there are arguments that can be made that new ones do get developed (GMO conspiracy theories, for example), but there is a disproportionate number that run in contravention to WP:FRINGE, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc. WP:FTN people have clashed in the past with draft reviewers and the thought was to incorporate more of us with you. Moving in this direction is something I think we can all get behind.
jps (talk) 18:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for the explanation. That makes a lot more sense. The edit warring on Garry Renard was my concern (within 3RR, but still edit warring). We do assess for this at NPR, but since you haven't been blocked for it recently and AfC is less strict on that requirement, I'm fine with granting at this time now that its clearer what you plan on doing with this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being receptive to my statements. If you have any desire to work on this project with me, feel free to continue the conversation at my talkpage or WP:FTN. The Gary Renard is now resolved, I believe. jps (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your detailed reply; it was what I was looking for initially. Primefac (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57::--Please have the pleasure to add yourself :)Winged BladesGodric 15:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. I thought your username sounded familiar... Primefac (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could I join I believe I meet the criteria I am not sure though plz respond Theminecraftplayer555 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done You most definitely do not meet the edit count criteria. Primefac (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to be granted privileges to help with student projects I oversee. I'm not sure if I meet the 500+ edit criteria, but I have a good understanding of review policies, citations standards, etc. and will only be periodically reviewing pages created by my students. Thanks for your time and consideration! Redcknight (talk) 14:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done. While I appreciate your enthusiasm and willingness to help out, you do not meet our criteria at this point in time. You will still obviously have access to your student's work and can assist them as necessary, but will not be able to review their drafts as an AFC Reviewer. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If thought suitable, I would be interested in trying my hand at this. KJP1 (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to be granted access so I can assist with the backlog of AfC drafts on articles relating to Australia. I am aware of the AfC guidelines, have participated in AfDs before and am familiar with the various notability guidelines etc, and have experience with article creation and page moving. Kb.au (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently I have to request here (I've seen several STOP signs before I got here) to be allowed to use the tools to be allowed to consider helping to fix a backlog of unreviewed new articles. Something about having at least 500 undeleted edits - I suspect I have created more than that many undeleted articles over the last 13 years! If we want new people to help contribute to Wikipedia, I hope the article creation experience for new editors is easier than the new reviewer process is for experienced editors. So please may I use the review tools?. In the mean time, I might go and improve one of the articles on the Australian list. Will that preclude me from then reviewing it too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottDavis (talk • contribs)
ScottDavis As a sysop you can add yourself to the list. It used to be that anyone extended confirmed could add themselves, but too many incompetent/inexperienced people added themselves.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have added myself. --Scott Davis Talk 09:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Miniapolis, just add yourself. There's no need for you to ask here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother. I've done it for you  :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants/Old_Requests/2017&oldid=1252158834"