Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Bot clerking: archiving (1 approved) (3 open requests remaining) |
→User:Bring back Daz Sampson: Not done. no followup (using responseHelper) |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:Requesting autopatrolled rights [[User:Bring back Daz Sampson|Bring back Daz Sampson]] ([[User talk:Bring back Daz Sampson|talk]]) 16:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC) |
:Requesting autopatrolled rights [[User:Bring back Daz Sampson|Bring back Daz Sampson]] ([[User talk:Bring back Daz Sampson|talk]]) 16:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
::{{comment}} {{yo|Bring back Daz Sampson}} I very much appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it looks like all of your article creations are of professional athletic figures or organizations. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this, and I'm not intending to ''criticize'' you in the slightest, but a body of uncontentious athletic stubs does not necessarily demonstrate a strong grasp of policies and guidelines or demonstrate competence and experience in quality content development. These kinds of editors can make good faith mistakes which result in the revocation of autopatrolled, which may seriously damage an editor's morale. Do you have any additional experience in content development apart from the articles you've created? If not, that's okay, but in that case, can you explain what the core content policies are, and how to handle disputes? [[User:Swarm|<span style="background:white;color:black;font-family:serif;"> Swarm </span>]][[User talk:Swarm|<span style="background:black;color:white;font-family:serif;"> talk </span>]] 22:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC) |
::{{comment}} {{yo|Bring back Daz Sampson}} I very much appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it looks like all of your article creations are of professional athletic figures or organizations. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this, and I'm not intending to ''criticize'' you in the slightest, but a body of uncontentious athletic stubs does not necessarily demonstrate a strong grasp of policies and guidelines or demonstrate competence and experience in quality content development. These kinds of editors can make good faith mistakes which result in the revocation of autopatrolled, which may seriously damage an editor's morale. Do you have any additional experience in content development apart from the articles you've created? If not, that's okay, but in that case, can you explain what the core content policies are, and how to handle disputes? [[User:Swarm|<span style="background:white;color:black;font-family:serif;"> Swarm </span>]][[User talk:Swarm|<span style="background:black;color:white;font-family:serif;"> talk </span>]] 22:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC) |
||
::{{not done}} no followup [[User:Swarm|<span style="background:white;color:black;font-family:serif;"> Swarm </span>]][[User talk:Swarm|<span style="background:black;color:white;font-family:serif;"> talk </span>]] 20:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC) |
|||
====[[User:Omnipaedista]]==== |
====[[User:Omnipaedista]]==== |
Revision as of 20:51, 19 October 2018
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. This notice is automatically updated by MusikBot (talk) and will hide when there are fewer than 3 requests and they are all under 7 days old. |
Autopatrolled
User:Flooded with them hundreds
- Flooded with them hundreds (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- I only create articles if the subject is notable and gaining this right might help reduce the chances of seeing "xxx marked yyy as reviewed" on my watchlist, which is a little annoying. Flooded with them hundreds 11:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Bring back Daz Sampson
- Bring back Daz Sampson (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- Requesting autopatrolled rights Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: @Bring back Daz Sampson: I very much appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. However, it looks like all of your article creations are of professional athletic figures or organizations. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with this, and I'm not intending to criticize you in the slightest, but a body of uncontentious athletic stubs does not necessarily demonstrate a strong grasp of policies and guidelines or demonstrate competence and experience in quality content development. These kinds of editors can make good faith mistakes which result in the revocation of autopatrolled, which may seriously damage an editor's morale. Do you have any additional experience in content development apart from the articles you've created? If not, that's okay, but in that case, can you explain what the core content policies are, and how to handle disputes? Swarm talk 22:39, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Not done no followup Swarm talk 20:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Omnipaedista
- Omnipaedista (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- Seasoned editor consistently editing since 2009 with 162,000+ edits under their belt (173,000+ edits on all projects). More than qualifies for APAT, and has created 2,491 redirects in ns:0. Granting APAT would lessen the burden at NPP. Sam Sailor 21:53, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Spinster300
- Spinster300 (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs (blocks · rights · moves) · rfar · spi · cci)
- Hello! I was recently mentioned as eligible for this right on this database, and hence considered formally applying. I have created over 60 articles in my short while here, and I have helped clean up several random articles and drafts. I would love to help further clean up the backlog of new articles yet to be reviewed if I can. Kindest regards, Spinster300 (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC). Spinster300 (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- @Spinster300: I just want to make sure you understand what you're requesting, because your statement isn't entirely clear. Are you interested in working on the new unreviewed articles backlog? i.e. being a reviewer? Because that's actually a different right, which you can request here. This right doesn't do anything whatsoever except exempt your article creations from the New Page Review process, but only if the Reviewers aren't finding anything to tag or improve in your articles. If that's what you're meaning to request, please just confirm and we'll look over your creations. Swarm talk 22:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Dear Swarm, I wish to request that my new articles are exempt from the New Page Review process: my earlier articles, were of course thoroughly cleaned up by senior editors, but as I've learned and honed my skills, most all of my recent articles pass without much error. But thank you for seeking clarification, I equally wish to apply for the New Page Reviewer right, but I'm not sure I'm eligible at present to do so. Kind regards, Spinster300 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC).