Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

If you wish to join the project you may add yourself to the list, don't ask here. Remember, you MUST have 500 ARTICLE edits!!! Thanks!

Requests

Please add me * {{user2|Nafsadh}} to participants list. I am interested to lend my time in reviewing AfCs. – nafSadh did say 01:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have added your name (though at the moment you can do so yourself... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add myself valoem (talk · contribs). Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still can not access the help script. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done You have already added yourself. --Biblioworm 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add myself. Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 19:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You do not yet have 500 edits to article space. --Biblioworm 02:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join. I have written a few articles: a few are copy-paste pages (episode pages, character list, etc.), two active articles Brett Dier and Dirty Grandpa and two drafts Draft:Fifty Shades (film series) and Draft:Grey (book) (brand new artcile). I have reviewed newly-created pages from registered users and IPs in the past. Thank you, Callmemirela (Talk) 23:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Callmemirela: You can just go ahead and add yourself, you have plenty of articlespace edits. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join, although I have under 3 months (90 days) on Wikipedia. Should I come back when I have reached that requirement? --Anarchyte 11:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close enough to 90 days with a cursory look at edits, so I've added you to the list Anarchyte Mdann52 (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join the project. I have helped to create articles in the mainspace and i would see the opportunity as a worthy extension to my wp editing.Rhumidian (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done You have already added yourself. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):Rhumidian, judging by this, I think it is safe to assue that you fully meet with the required criteria for reviewing AfC submissions. There is therefore nothing to prevent you from adding yourself to the list. Happy reviewing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join this project. I have over 1600 edits and frequently monitor the new pages and tag them when necessary. I also use huggle to perform many of my duties. Thanks! -PotatoNinja^{(Talk to me!)} 14:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Primefac (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am I eligible to join this project? If yes, please add me.User:AnanthanarayanaSharma —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. -- -- -- 04:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:111.250.56.144, I want to join, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.250.56.144 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IP editor. One of the requirements to join the AfC reviewing team is a Wikipedia account. IP editors are precluded from reviewing. However, you are welcome to register an account and try again once you have met the four criteria at WP:WPAFC/P. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 14:21, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to join. Thanks! Delta13C (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized I can add myself! Delta13C (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please re add me to the project.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 16:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please add me to participants list. I am interested to lend my time in reviewing AfCs. WendigoUK (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WendigoUK:  Not done You don't currently meet the reviewing requirements at WP:WPAFC/P; you would need 500 undeleted edits to mainspace articles. At that point, and once you're familiar with all the core Wikipedia notability guidelines and policies in the reviewing instructions, you're welcome to add your name to the list. Thanks, /wiae /tlk 15:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

I have removed Susana Hodge from the list. The barely 400 mainspace edits were very minor and mostly made during the past 48 hours. A request at PERM for New Page Reviewer was also declined for the same reason. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another 8 additions have been reverted in the last three weeks. This is getting ridiculous - don't you all agree? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've always thought the page should be full protected and requests be made in talk page, so that admins can review their edits and see what they are up to. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What if the participants list was fully protected, we should've set up a PERM page just like requesting other permissions? KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think having a PERM setup is necessary (we have the "requests" thread at the top of this page), I can agree with further protection.

On a somewhat related note, I've cleared out the inactives - 9 editors who haven't edited in 2+ months, 48 who haven't reviewed a page in 6+ months. This leaves us with 152 reviewers and DGG's alt account. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have just removed yet another new inscription (Wakowako) with the rationale
  Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm but 83 mainspace edits in the last 4 years out of a total of only 800 since 2012 does not demonstrate a good understanding of the policies mentioned in the reviewing instructions or provide an indication that you intend to return to regular editing. Please make three months of significant consistent contributions, then you will be prepared for reviewing drafts.
  

We're currently running at well over 20% of new enrollments being reverted. I seriously think it's time now to fully protect the page to the extent that users must at least make an edit request to be included on the list. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's have a discussion on whether I be allowed to add myself to the project or not. I've been approving redirect requests on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects, and I added myself to this database in order to use User:PhantomTech/scripts/AFCRHS.js. See User_talk:Ethanbas#AFC_Redirects for some discussion. I understand the COI issue, but all I've been doing is approving redirect requests. Not putting myself on the list of participants hurts my ability to approve redirect request, which at least TonyBallioni is glad I've been doing this work. Pinging KGirlTrucker81, relevant active editor on the redirects for creation page. Ethanbas ^(talk) 06:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas: Well, yes and looking over your edit count, I see a bunch of mainspace edits. You can freely add yourself but unfortunately, you're an paid editor and that's why Kudpung reverted you. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no issue with the work at AFC redirects: it gets a backlog at some points and it's a bit more difficult to create paid promotional content that way. I agree with Kudpung's concerns with the paid-editing for AfC in general, however. It's a tricky subject and it could place Ethanbas in the place where he would be approving other contributions that were bankrolled by the same funder (there is at least one other editor I've seen who has the same funder.) i also have concerns with what Ethanbas considers appropriate articles to be created and have had strong disagreements with him in the past re: BLP policy. That being said his recent work with presidential timelines has been good. It's a tough case, but I'm willing to lean on Kudpung's side here, though like I said, I think redirect work would be fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To further clarify: I think Ethanbas has no business reviewing drafts and agree with everything Kudpung has said below. I don't think the redirects harm anything, but fully support the removal from the participants group. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The many issues reported on Ethanbas' talk page would appear to demonstrate that he lacks sufficient competency for reviewing tasks. Just one example of his own creations can be seen at Andy Baukol. I contend that anyone who intends to police articles shoud know how to produce them. There are also the issues of paid editing and COI and certainly a temperament that I do not believe contributes to a healthy collaborative environment. Bishonen may also wish to comment here.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Kudpung. Ethanbas should not be reviewing drafts. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]