(add request • view requests)

• Download · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs · block log · rights log · google · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions) (^{r · p · f · c})

75k edits, with the project for 5ish years. Creating stubs on scorpion species last I saw. As a NPPer, I am fully comfortable with this user's ability to create acceptable articles. VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully this will help cut down the backlog and remove those annoying alerts I get when someone patrols a page I make. :) -download ׀ talk 17:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IanRootBeerDubber · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs · block log · rights log · google · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions) (^{r · p · f · c})

User creates stubs of anime and manga article and appears on the eligible for Autopatrol privilege list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:37, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Mainly stubs that do not take long for New Page Patrolers to review. Some articles, particularly the BLPs about voice actresses need more sources to establish notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources point is a good one; I am afraid I do not understand why "it doesn't take long for the patrollers to review each article" is a concern, however. It is true - it doesn't take long to review a stub - but it is still time that could be spent on articles that actually need review, and time that adds up. Ironholds (talk) 04:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous comment, Ironholds. It does not take long to review a stub. If you are going to put things in quotes, please be accurate. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: okay; can you address the substance rather than form of my comment? Again, I'm not saying it takes long to review a stub - I'm saying that, cumulatively, stubs add up. Ironholds (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ironholds:. Yes, quite easily: a) Page Curation is an excellent tool that has greatly speedied up the actual process of patrolling new pages by individual users. b) The cumulative effect of the one second or two that it takes to view a stub is insignificant when the list of articles to patrol is taken as a whole. c) As no subject knowledge is required, only knowledge of what constitutes an article that passes muster, again the time is only a second or two. d) Editors who mainly create large numbers of stubs within a narrow subject area have not necessarily demonstrated that they are fully familiar with these criteria. Finally, if you would like to continue this discussion, a more appropriate venue would be WT:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Lukeno94 · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs · block log · rights log · google · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions) (^{r · p · f · c})

I've just gone over the 50 article mark (I believe I'm at 51 now.) I have over 9,200 live edits at present, and as I intend to continue creating articles, I believe I have a strong enough grasp of policy for my articles to not need patrolling. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Qwerty Binary · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs · block log · rights log · google · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions) (^{r · p · f · c})

I appear to have created the recommended minimum of 50 articles, but I can't say that they're entirely excellent (for instance, I'm sure a number of them that look pretty full can be further extended and expanded); however, I believe that I will be creating more articles in the future and making them good articles (but not necessarily Good Articles). To reduce the considerable effort in patrolling pages that I create, I am therefore requesting autopatrolled user rights. Any comments regarding articles created would also be duly appreciated and an opportunity to learn and improve! Cheers. Qwerty Binary (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done: Qwerty Binary appears to currently have the autoreviewer user right. - KingpinBot (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was being done by me while Kinpinbot was adding this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Jinkinson · (talk · contribs · deleted · cross-wiki · wikichecker · count · pages created · auto edits · logs · block log · rights log · google · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · spi) (assign permissions) (^{r · p · f · c})

I think I am sufficiently experienced on Wikipedia to have this right, as I have created exactly 50 articles (and some others that no longer exist).

UPDATE: Actually, only 46. Jinkinson (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Significant material from Stephen Bustin is (technically) a copy-paste copyright violation from http://www.miqe.info/ ... other articles not checked by me, but need checking by others. It's also worth noting that this editor seems to have a campaigning approach to content creation (see their user page with "vaccine opponents", "vaccine defenders", "soda/obesity", "global warming") - it would be better that articles were patrolled for the time being. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. There are also other issues concerning some of the creations which came to light after only a random check, especially the level of referencing - in some cases with the BLPs of academics, so I'm declining at this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]