Place to request autopatrolled rights
|
|---|
| Common | |
|---|
| Uncommon | |
|---|
| Logs | |
|---|
| Special | |
|---|
 | This page has anadministrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
This notice is automatically updated byMusikBot (talk) and will hide when there are fewer than 3 requests and they are all under 7 days old. |
Autopatrolled
Please read
Wikipedia:Autopatrolled before requesting or nominating another user for this right. Applicants will not be granted this right if they have not created
at least25 new articles on the English Wikipedia, excluding
redirects and
disambiguation pages. These articles should be free of problems requiring the attention of patrollers. Note that this right
will not help you create or patrol articles.
Permission was revoked athttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=169754554 . The permission was revoked four months ago before I recently returned after 14 years of absence from the project, please reinstate.Sswonk (talk)15:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]).—MusikBottalk15:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]- This RfC recently established that autopatrolled can be procedurally revoked from inactive contributors, but I don't think there was consensus that it could be procedurally reinstated upon request, so I would encourage the reviewing administrator (I'm not one) to consider this like any other request. @Sswonk: I had a couple of questions about the articles you recently created: what makesthis website (onLoretta Lynn: Coal Miner's Daughter) andthis website (onHonky Tonk Girl: My Life in Lyrics)reliable sources? Also, sinceIMDb is an unreliable source, is there another citation that could be used for the award on that first article?—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)16:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I forgot to say: welcome back to the project! I realized my comments above could come across as trying to shoot you down after your wikibreak, but I did mean it as genuine questions/feedback. :)—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)16:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks TS69, I did not realize that you had posted here before I went to your talk, I am copy-pasting that here so we can continue the conversation in one place. Below is re: Jeff Burger, will respond on other questions momentarily.
- I added a second citation to the first paragraph ofLoretta Lynn: Coal Miner's Daughter. I think the first citation is fine, yes it is a self-published source by Jeff Burger however Burger is well-known (https://www.chicagoreviewpress.com/burger--jeff-contributor-301827.php) and the site serves as an archive of his previously published reviews. The page I cite is a reprint of a review first published in 1976, the publication is not specified, however the information about Burger suggests it satisfies "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." See alsohttps://search.worldcat.org/search?q=au=%22Burger%2C%20Jeff%22 -- Burger should be considered reliable.Sswonk (talk)16:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the second question about Chapter 16, please seehttps://chapter16.org/about-us/ andhttps://www.humanitiestennessee.org/about/our-story/?cn-reloaded=1 publisher of the cited, archived website. I would also consider that as satisfyingWP:V.
- I did not realize IMDb was unreliable, I used that because it is the single source of the page38th Golden Globe Awards. I added the actual Golden Globes as a source.Sswonk (talk)17:01, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for making those changes — your point about Burger makes sense to me, so I'll remove the{{sps?}} tag, and citing the Golden Globes' website for that award looks appropriate. I'm less sure about the reliability ofChapter 16, but I think I'll leave this for an administrator to weigh whether or not that would be a significant blocker to granting the permission.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)17:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that, thank you.Sswonk (talk)18:20, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The question remaining from TechnoSquirrel69 asks for administrator input on the reliability of the Chapter 16 web outlet of the Tennessee Humanities organization. Links are provided a couple of paragraphs above. I am noting here that this morning I changed the previously existing citation link on theHonky Tonk Girl: My Life in Lyrics page to a direct link rather than to the archived page, as I was able to find the current url for the review. The link TechnoSquirrel69 includes above in his initial post has been updated toa current page. So we are dealing with theWP:RS status of a current page on a site that supports a 51-year old Tennessee institution funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities. I think Chapter 16 is entirely reliable and should be used on Wikipedia articles related to Tennessee culture and history as needed. However, I want to thank TechnoSquirrel69 for diligence in finding areas for improvement in these stubs. Like him, I strive for the best references available and had determined the Chapter 16 and Jeff Burger sites were satisfactory prior to opening this request for permission; however I have been away for over a decade and am prepared to face challenges with humility. Fifteen years ago I worked onLed Zeppelin which was at the time poorly organized but since I left has been promoted to GA status. My opinion is thatLoretta Lynn is on a similar level as a significant performer and figure in popular music history, and naturally I want articles about her and her work to havetop-shelf reviews; even stubs should strive for high quality, especially references within them, to help other editors find further material, to set a tone of sincerity and professionalism. Thank you again TechnoSquirrel69.Sswonk (talk)14:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes theTreaty of Southampton notable?voorts (talk/contributions)21:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sswonkvoorts (talk/contributions)22:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Voorts -- The notability rises from its mention in reliable sources as the first alliance between England and the Dutch Republic and as an initial policy forming act of Charles I. There was an existing maritime agreement, but the treaty went further and allied the two nations against Spain during a volatile period. To quote Anton Poot whose PhD thesis is one of the sources, "the maritime agreement had not mentioned Spain by name as the common enemy; the Treaty of Southampton left no doubt. It created an Anglo-Dutch partnership for a joint war against Spain, effectively meaning that England joined the Dutch in a war they had been waging already for decades." Charles was asserting England against Spain formally. The sources find it significant in the history of the Eighty Years War and of pre-civil war England.Sswonk (talk)13:34, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like your ping didn't go through @Sswonk. Are there any sources other than the PhD dissertation that discuss the treaty in depth?voorts (talk/contributions)01:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Voorts yes, odd about the ping. Well, as you can see in the article I posted about a month ago, I was able to identify the three sources plus the "further reading" thesis as verification for the information in the article at the time I posted it. I did not find much more, at least not that well sourced. The timing, the fact that the king did not stick by the Dutch, may make Southampton more obscure, and conceivably it might be well-challenged as notWP:RSed enough, but why? What I posted might be merged with an article that treated (pun?) the entirety of pre-civil war relations, something like that "further reading", don't know. I mean, I simply decided to write that stub article because it (the subject) is an entity that exists in history, that was mentioned in timelines, had a "redlink" where I first saw the treaty mentioned in Wikipedia, and that has sourced material about it. The entire treaty, albeit in French, is available to follow leads from. So I think it is worth posting a brief article about. This project is really a good jumping off point for people to explore and edit articles about obscure history topics. What is your opinion, Voorts, isn't what is sourced and the quality of those sources sufficient? And, shouldn't the topic be part of the encyclopedia? I have less than 8K edits in over four years of active editing, maybe I am missing something; I fell as thoughTreaty of Southampton fills a gap in coverage, without relying on original research. I understandWP:OWN and basically, whether obvious or not, I stepped away from editing the article the day I started it, hoping others might follow up, it isn't anything I claim to know a lot about other than those sources. But someone, or a few someones, might be able to expand the article to have more sources in a way I can't grasp this morning, and I hope that they do.Sswonk (talk)13:52, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am requesting Autopatrolled rights in order to reduce the backlog of articles awaiting review. I primarily create new articles on politics and law with a focus on biographies of notable individuals. I ensure that the content I add are verifiable and the articles comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My previous request was declined inMarch 2025. Since then, I have strived to improve the quality of my contributions and have made substantial improvements to several existing ones, upgrading them to B-grade, e.g.,[2],[3] and[4]. Regards.QEnigma 论03:46, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I formally request the autopatrolled user right. I'm a regular user of Wikipedia, both in English and Spanish, and I consider that, after so many years and hundreds of articles created on both wikis, i am in the position to say that I know the rules and styles. I've never cared much about user rights, but now that I've started a personal project (ambassadors of Spain and all its lists) to expand diplomatic information about my country, Spain, I'd like to avoid the workload that comes with reviewing articles that comply with our rules. Thank you.TheRichic
(Messages here)11:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheRichic: why isFrancisco Javier Conde de Saro notable?voorts (talk/contributions)01:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I formally request the Autopatrolled user right. I'm a regular user of Wikipedia, both in Turkish and English. I have contributed to the Turkish Wikipedia, particularly on the Tao-Klarjeti region. I have also started to transfer these contributions to the English Wikipedia. I think it would be good to reduce the workload involved in reviewing the items I have written. Thank you. --ႧႤႧႰႨ ႾႠႰႨ (talk)15:32, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006, have created numerous new articles, edited countless others, and am very familiar with its policies.Λeternus(talk)12:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User regularly creates articles relating to military history, biographies, and the US. User has created over 200 articles.SnowyRiver28(talk)05:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- (Non-administrator comment) +1 agree and articles created are generally good in terms of standards.Agent 007 (talk)18:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've periodically patrolled Michelangelo1992's articles, and consistently found them to be in good shape. Focused on books as a topic area and very clear familiarity withWP:NBOOK. He's created 135 articles.~ L 🌸 (talk)22:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment This user has had this permission revoked in the past 180 days ([1]).—MusikBottalk15:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply].svg)
(Messages here)11:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]