Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2009

[edit]

User:ilamb94

[edit]

I have created 94 articles and counting.

 Done Nakon 03:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:BusterD

[edit]
Almost four years as a registered editor; 49 new article creations (20 since January 1, 2009), no deletions; 4 dyks, occasional participation in deletion processes.
 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jafeluv

[edit]
I've created 83 new articles, with a couple more pages created while splitting existing articles.
 Done Acalamari 22:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Binksternet

[edit]
I've put up 56 mainspace articles so far and at least twice that in redirects. More on the way...
I count a few more, but good enough for me.  Done and thanks for helping. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ukexpat

[edit]
requested principally for mainspace and projectspace redirects. Thank you.
 Done Acalamari 15:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Multixfer

[edit]
This seems like a helpful userright. I haven't created many articles yet, but I have created some helpful redirects and see myself creating many more (plus articles) in the near future. Thanks for your consideration! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, the suggested criteria is 75 articles created, which you do not currently meet. Nakon 08:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joopercoopers

[edit]

User:Joopercoopers

[edit]
Currently here's my small list of new articles [1] which is quality vs. quantity. However, please also see a 140 page list of creates as my previous incarnation [2] both exclude redirects. regards --Joopercoopers (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Surely. wadester16 01:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gavia immer

[edit]
I frequently create missing redirects, including mass-creations of redirects - no mass-creations recently, but see Special:PrefixIndex/Showa and Special:PrefixIndex/Shōwa for an example of what I've done. My main reason for requesting autoreviewer is to help avoid the puzzled messages such mass-creations sometimes engender on my talk page - which are the reason I don't have any especially recent examples. I've been an editor since July 2006 without any problems to speak of, and I'm as familiar with policy as you'd expect from an editor active that long. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for your efforts. wadester16 22:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History2007

[edit]

Hi, Please consider this my formal application to receive Autoreviewer stauts based on my complete edit/create history: [3]. Of these over 200 new pages are non-redirects. [4]. A structured list of articles I have started (most of them substantial) can also be seen here: User:History2007/pages. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Malinaccier (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers

[edit]

Er, me too. Here is my list of over 300 pages created: [5]. My practice is generally not to created a new article unless I have enough information for at least a "start-class" article. Here is a list of my top namespace edits: [6] and my general user info: General. I have been a substantial contributor to 16 GA or FA articles and 84 DYKs. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Malinaccier (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candlewicke

[edit]

That tool doesn't appear to be working. So... 75 pages? Hmmm... I have more than 75 DYKs... more than 75 ITNs... I even managed to create one of my GAs all by myself... and I've been around for several years so does that answer for experience? Understanding of policy? Hmmm... does saving Jimmy Smallhorne count? --candle•wicke 18:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The tool must be assigned to you by an administrator, it does not automatically kick in once you create 70+ articles. Would you like to have the tool enabled on your account? Tiptoety talk 19:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnfos

[edit]

I would like to apply for autoreviewer status please. I have contributed 500+ new pages now, and have brought nine articles up to the Good Article stage. Johnfos (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done TNXMan 19:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katr67

[edit]

More than 45,000 edits over nearly 3 1/2 years of editing, no blocks and no articles deleted. Here's a list of articles I created that I feel I can take full credit for, not being housekeeping articles or dab pages. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Malinaccier (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Grk1011

[edit]
I would like to apply for autoreviwer status as I consider myself a knowledgeable editor who is very familiar with wikipedia policies. I have also created more than 75 articles of which, some are DYKs, some are GAs. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and thank you for your efforts. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:SusanLesch

[edit]
Hi. 71 articles so far plus redirects. Thanks either way.
 Done Close enough. Malinaccier (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ktr101

[edit]
I've created many pages, and I am extremely familiar with the rules and regulations of this site. Thank you in advance for any decision.
 Done Malinaccier (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ian Spackman

[edit]
I seem to have created a few hundred pages, and don’t recall any of them creating relevant problems. Ian Spackman (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done TNXMan 11:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo

[edit]

See also here. --Leyo 14:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Acalamari 15:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shoy

[edit]

Somehow I've managed to put together some 50-odd articles (there's a list on my userpage) and probably twice that number of redirects. shoy (reactions) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Acalamari 17:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tasoskessaris

[edit]

Requesting autoreviewer status. Thanks. Dr.K. logos 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Acalamari
Many thanks Acalamari. Take care. Tasos (Dr.K. logos 18:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

July 2009

[edit]

User:ImperatorExercitus

[edit]
Even though I haven't written hundreds of articles, I have written many good quality pages that can be found on my page. That, and I do a bunch of work at Special:newPages. BTW, being one of the most active users at WP:AFC/R, I've created hundreds of redirects. Cheers, I'mperator 16:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Cheers, I'mperator 18:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nomader

[edit]
I've created a good amount of articles (somewhere above forty), but especially recently I've been on an article creation spree. I've contributed some re-directs, and I've worked on other articles as well. -- Nomader (Talk) 06:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, the criteria is a minimum of 70 new articles, not including redirects. You do not currently meet this criteria. Nakon 06:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, cheers. -- Nomader (Talk) 06:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Óðinn

[edit]
I have started 133 articles. - Óðinn (talk) 03:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Juliancolton | Talk 03:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Óðinn (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bsimmons666

[edit]
I've started a bunch of articles - see my userpage for a whole list. I figure this would just lighten the load a bit for NPPers. - Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Nakon 14:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:MC10

[edit]
I have created 73 articles (just barely under the 75 article limit). - —MC10|Sign here! 23:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Juliancolton | Talk 23:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Kumioko

[edit]
I have created around 150 pages currently and will be creating a lot more in the future and it would be useful to have this ability. I have over 72000+edit and have been active in WP for a couple years now with several good and featured articles and several featured lists. - Kumioko (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done PeterSymonds (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Belovedfreak

[edit]
I have created 200+ articles. - BelovedFreak 20:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 20:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Raime

[edit]
I have created over 150 articles. - Rai•me 18:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 18:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rai•me 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Irbisgreif

[edit]
I have been making a habit of going to random pages on the German Wiki and translating them over to the English Wiki. I've only done a couple so far, but I intend to be around and doing it for a while. - Irbisgreif (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gordonrox24

[edit]
I plan on making articles for all drivers in the Canadian Motorsport Hall of Fame all in the format of my Ken Achs article.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 17:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 17:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Mario1987

[edit]
Created exactly 1804 articles until now - Mario1987 20:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done to state the status of the request, but you already have autoreviewer rights. ;) Acalamari 20:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that. Yhanks anyway. Cheers! Mario1987 21:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

[edit]

User:Mike Christie

[edit]
I've created nearly 90 new pages over the years, and I'd like to think my record shows I can be trusted. - Mike Christie (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Merovingian

[edit]
2000+ new articles... I admit mostly stubs, but it works. - Merovingian (T, C) 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admins get it by default as part of the admin package. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, never mind then. I assume then that it was implemented retroactively? --Merovingian (T, C) 17:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, unnecessary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:VitaleBaby

[edit]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. 

- Irbisgreif (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seriously? {{lorem}}? wadester16 19:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that happened because I didn't put a comment. It said it was optional, and the person has been creating mostly articles about a subway system, meaning there's a lot of them. I figured a quick check of contributions would show this. I did not mean to have Lorem ipsem show up. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I was wondering. At the time, the tool was down too, so I couldn't really check either. wadester16 03:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I've reviewed your contribs and you look like you could benefit from the tool :). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Jameson

[edit]
(I've been sporadically creating articles on historic properties and historic people. I trust a scan through the 200+ articles I've created would demonstrate a decent record.) - Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done to answer the request, but for the record, you already have the right. ;) Acalamari 20:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'm already special and no one told me? :( Andrew Jameson (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Basket of Puppies

[edit]
Just hoping I can become an autoreviewer so my new pages would pass this muster. Thanks!!! :D - Basket of Puppies 03:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done You have only created eight articles. Malinaccier (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pikiwyn

[edit]
I've created over 90 valid articles and think autoreviewer would make the work less for other users) - Pikiwyn talk 20:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Juliancolton | Talk 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Charles Edward

[edit]
I make a new article every few days. Alot are redirects and some are moves though. I try to follow policy very well too, and none of my article have ever been deleted (that I can recall). Autoreview would help make less work for others if given to me. :) - —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 72 articles and trusted with rollback already, I see no problem. Regards SoWhy 16:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Fribbulus Xax

[edit]
I've made 200+ new articles and do a fair bit of NPP so am aware of the impact of patroling and the advantage this credential brings. - Fribbulus Xax (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rlendog

[edit]
I have created over 100 articles (not counting redirects) and continue to do so; autoreview would seem to reduce the new page patrol backlog - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs)
It was already  Done by Malinaccier (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) back in June. Tiptoety talk 18:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Urs.Waefler

[edit]
I am active in the German Wikipedia. I have this permission in the German Wikipdia, I am a so called Sichter. I just would like to have the same permission in the English Wikipedia.- Urs.Waefler (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Considering the one edit to create this request was almost 3% of your edits here on the English Wikipedia, I don't currently feel comfortable giving you this permission. Please don't take offense, but I have to draw the line somewhere. Best, wadester16 19:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am affected. Please do not judge quantity only. What is about quality? How can Wikipedia grow, if we set such limits? In the German Wikipedia I got this permission by invitation. I want to build bridges, I contribute in such a manner. I work on quality, to underdand details is the only way to solve problems. It is not quantity; quantity I reached in the German Wikipedia already. There is no need to undergo the same procedure in the English Wikipedia. --Urs.Waefler (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Autoreviewer is not an award for quality work. Its sole purpose is to reduce the workload put upon new page patrollers, and if you aren't creating a particularly large amount of articles, there's no point in granting it. Sorry. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a missunderstanding? Autoreviewer is not the equivalent to Sichter? --Urs.Waefler (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not the same. We don't yet have flagged revisions. The "English version" under "Andere Sprachen" leads to Wikipedia:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions. Autoreviewer makes it so that if you make a new article, it is not listed under Special:NewPages. wadester16 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the equivalent to Sichter? German Wikipedia is leading. English Wikipedia does not have the concept of Sichter yet? --Urs.Waefler (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above, the equivalent is Flagged revisions, which we have not yet implemented. wadester16 22:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr. Szląchski

[edit]
I have created 70+ articles (excluding redirects) and think that this tool would make it easier for me to help make Wikipedia a better place - Dr. Szląchski (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Juliancolton | Talk 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I will do my best. Dr. Szląchski (talk) 04:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Msh210

[edit]
To reduce necessary patrols. My edits show sufficient experience and familiarity with guidelines (IMHO).—msh210℠ 19:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, though with a bit of hesitance, since you've only created around 50 articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chhe

[edit]
I have created way more than 100 new wikipedia pages and would like to have the autoreviewer permission in order to further help out in improving wikipedia. - Chhe (talk) 05:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best of luck. wadester16 06:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Tim1357

[edit]
Tim has made several stubs about insects in the last hour. I'm not sure how many articles Tim has made, but giving him autoreviewer status would help reduce the New Page Patrol backlog. --I dream of horses (T) @ 00:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through a few of the insect stubs; they look alright.  Done. NW (Talk) 00:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:P199

[edit]
My list of new quality articles should speak for itself - P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly does.  Done, and thanks for your fantastic work. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:sephia karta

[edit]
(I have created 50+ new articles, not counting redirects or articles created over existing redirects. Many of the articles I create and edit are about politicians still alive and to my recollection I have never run into trouble with WP:BLP or WP:N.) - sephia karta | di mi 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 21:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:D climacus

[edit]
I'm going to be very active in "Articles to be split". I have created 15 article already. Autoreview will reduce the new page patrol backlog. - David - (Wikipedia Vandal Fighter). 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 01:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

[edit]

User:Stilltim

[edit]
Creates several stubs about the Delaware legislature and unwittingly backlogs the new page patrol. - I dream of horses (T) @ 02:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done per concerns about this user's article creations. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arbitrarily0

[edit]
Hi all. I am requesting autoreviewer rights because, as a patroller myself, I hope to help slim down the new page patrol (back)log. I understand that the recommended number of created articles is 75 (I have some 50), but I am requesting early in hopes that 25 less articles will end up in the patrol log. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Juliancolton! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


 Not done - cross-wiki disruption. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshdboz

[edit]
I was unaware that this existed and unaware that I was previously on User:JVbot/patrol whitelist, so I guess I'd be happy to cut the patrollers' work down again! - Joshdboz (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and thanks for your work. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:EricV89

[edit]
Much obliged... :) - eric dilettante' (mailbox) 06:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. See Wikipedia:Autoreviewer; the recommended page creation count for applicants is 75. You've only created two, so you don't need this permission. Thanks for your interest. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Swpb

[edit]
I intend to keep creating articles, and I'm very familiar with the relevant policies. - » Swpbτ • ¢ 22:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural  Done, as you were already granted it in June. ;) Keep up the good work. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so don't remember that happening... » Swpbτ • ¢ 02:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Eddie6705

[edit]
I have created many articles and intend to continue. I also occasionally patrol new pages and hope this would help to reduce the backlog - Eddie6705 (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 23:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Porchcrop

[edit]
I know every policy and guideline as well as the content and style ones (which includes WP:BLP and WP:N). I am also a new page patroller and an approved user to New Page Watcher. - -Porchcrop (talk|contributions) 23:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✗ Not done Sorry, but you have not created any pages. Autoreviewer is only meant to be used for people who have created dozens of articles. NW (Talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ssr

[edit]
An autoreviewer at ru, want to be the same at en, editing articles from 2005. - ssr (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but  Not done as you've only created about 16 articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kyle1278

[edit]
I have been, and planning to continue to crate articles for Alberta settlements this will help with the amount of patrol backlog - Kyle1278 01:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Georgejdorner

[edit]
The articles created thus far appear to be fine, no need to keep having them show up on the unpatrolled log - Terrillja talk 21:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Agreed. upstateNYer 22:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Seth Whales

[edit]
I have created 35 articles, not one deleted. - Seth Whales (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and thanks for your work. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Article Creator

[edit]
(I have created 75 articles not one deleted) - The Article Creator (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done upstateNYer 22:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kelapstick

[edit]
Of all the article I created (of which there is about 65), none have been deleted, and one has been turned into a redirect. - kelapstick (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 20:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyclonenim

[edit]
Working at WP:MED for the past few years, mostly editing pre-created pages but am slowly expanding into page creation (see userpage) and I am looking to fix red links listed here. None of my articles have (to my knowledge) been deleted. - Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kresock

[edit]
Around 50 pages made. If it will help with the unpatrolled log! - Kresock (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 20:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dwayneflanders

[edit]
(Hello, i was wondering if i can get permissions for autoreviewer, i am very experienced and i have been on wikipedia for 1 year. I am also good at rollback, i plan to request for rollback permissions in a few months. )-- ♠ Dwayneflanders' Talk 21:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. This isn't an extra flag to collect for the sake of it, as I explained earlier. You've created three articles that were very recently deleted under A7, and have also been warned for copyright violations recently. You don't need this tool, and in the circumstances, you are not eligible for it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Juhachi

[edit]
I have been on Wikipedia already for over three years, have created a multitude of articles during my time here, have been a rollbacker since last year, and have over 48,000 contributions. - 十八 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and thanks for your work. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Moe Epsilon

[edit]
I don't create articles as often as I used to (but I have created over 100 articles), so this will only clear the backlog at patrolled pages just a little more whenever I start creating articles again. User:Moe Epsilon/Created is a wikitext list of pages I created, generated from the article counting tool. - — ℳℴℯ ε 23:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 23:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. — ℳℴℯ ε 23:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Stilltim

[edit]
This user has created over 100 valid articles about sessions of the Delaware General Assembly in the past month. It would help to keep the patrolled pages backlog clear if he were an autoreviewer. - TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done upstateNYer 02:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Chanakal

[edit]
I have created 77 articles so far and would be continuing to do so.Regards - Chanaka L (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and thanks for your work. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


October 2009

[edit]

User:Mixwell

[edit]
I'll start patrolling pages and it's gonna help me to do some autoreviewing at the same time. I know i don't meet the minimal number of articles, but i have been here for a long time. - Mixwell!Talk 01:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Autoreviewer makes it so when you create an article, it doesn't come up at Special:NewPages. Giving you autoreviewer status doesn't do anything for you, it lessens the load for new page patrollers. Based on that, you don't yet have enough articles to qualify. upstateNYer 02:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:JL 09

[edit]
I want to be very active in patrolling pages. Already created 32 pages. - JL 09 q?c 17:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that autoreviewer doesn't do anything for you? It only makes it so that when you create a new page, it doesn't show up at New Pages. Your request seems to imply that you think it will help you patrol new pages, which it won't. upstateNYer 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay upstatenyer. I understand only now. It won't do anything, but make my new articles automatically at page patrol. Thanks for the information, I'll not continue my request then.--JL 09 q?c 13:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done (just making note so it can be archived). PeterSymonds (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zink Dawg

[edit]
I was wondering if I need this. I'm going to be working on Articles to be split.-- Zink Dawg -- 19:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. The flag can be applied when necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created 63 pages. See this page. Thanks, --Zink Dawg -- 19:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andy M. Wang

[edit]
I have not created many articles, but I am completely trustworthy. - — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 04:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done; I don't doubt that you're trustworthy, but you haven't created so many pages as to justify flagging your account with autoreviewer. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:TreasuryTag

[edit]
I'm not a huge creator of pages, but I am completely bona fide and don't want to burden patrollers with my edits! - ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. As with above, I've no doubt you're trustworthy, but autoreviewer has little do with trust. You've only created 16 articles, whereas I generally look for at least 50. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what the purpose of that rather arbitrary restriction is, and what the danger to the project would be if you were to grant the flag? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sole purpose of the autoreviewer right is to reduce the workload on newpage-patrollers by preventing your articles from flooding Special:NewPages. If your pages aren't flooding this list, then it's not necessary to flag your account. For what it's worth, autoreviewer has no effect whatsoever on your editing. If I recall correctly, the initial "requirement" was 75 articles created, but I consider 50 a good number to go by. Hope this helps, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the idea of Wikipedia that flags are no-big-deal? What is the risk, the harmful or adverse consequences that will/might stem from your granting the userright? ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal at all, but there's no point in granting a userright for the sake of it. Do you intend to create dozens of articles in the near future? –Juliancolton | Talk 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not a fan of autoreviewer being in my rights log. ZooFari 22:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Bretonbanquet

[edit]
I've created quite a few articles, and more will follow. Include me in this if you think it will help :) - Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 17:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gulmammad

[edit]
I've been around for about 2 years and know very well how Wikipedia works. I haven't created enough articles (only about 40) to be qualified for this privilege but thought I could be more helpful with having it. - Zitterbewegung Talk 05:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bruce1ee

[edit]
Been here for over 4 years with 24,000 edits and over 100 new page creations. Thanks. - Bruce1eetalk 10:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:OrangeDog

[edit]
- OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Only 11 pages created. The minimum requirement for this right is a lot more (currently 75). PeterSymonds (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Shawn in Montreal

[edit]
If it will make things easier for new page patrolling editors for more experienced editors to have this, sure, I'd like to request Autoreviewer. - Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. You have a lot (A LOT) of positive contributions that leads me to believe you won't abuse. Therefore consider yourself autoreviewed. Valley2city‽ 07:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:M3taphysical

[edit]

I recently stumbled upon the Autoreviewer information page. As an honest and active wikipedian, I will gladly do anything to make this place run more smoothly. I've been active for quite a long time and have made regular edits. Feel free to inquire about my past actions.--m3taphysical (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I didn't notice that a user must have 75 articles in order to request an autoreview permission. Considering that I have only made 23 articles, I guess this doesn't make me a suitable candidate. My apologies. --m3taphysical (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The 75 article number is more of a recommendation, and being that you have created 27 created quality articles, you probably know how to write a quality article and you won't abuse the auto-patrol right :). Best, Mifter (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) --m3taphysical (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Killervogel5

[edit]
I realize that my "created articles" total is a lot less than the 75 suggested (I have created 35 non-redirects as of this writing), but I believe that the quality of my work speaks for itself. Much of the work I do is expanding on stubs or short lists, or adding formatting to lists, that others have created. I'm simply asking for this flag as a courtesy to other users so that new pages I do create, like the recently-moved Whiz Kids (baseball), don't need to be reviewed. As someone who's worked at New Page Patrol, I know that every little bit helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 02:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moondyne

[edit]
For your consideration ... - –Moondyne 11:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 15:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Jason Quinn

[edit]
Pretty please.
 Done and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stuart

[edit]
Cheers. - Stu ’Bout ye! 13:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Regards SoWhy 13:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

[edit]

User:Bwilkins

[edit]
Although I don't know why this shows the original article titles that I moved according to MOS, I tend to create according to redlinks, most wanted articles, geographic islands/towns that are missing, and disambig pages where needed. Thanks - (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carlossfsu

[edit]
Another editor recommended on this user's talk page that they seek autoreviewer status due to the many articles they create. They haven't pursued it themselves, so I'm putting in the request. Over 150 new articles with only one deleted edit. No reason to keep seeing them on new page patrol. - RL0919 (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with a note to say that the warnings from a few months ago are out of date it seems. Acalamari 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kernel Saunters

[edit]
(Got a few articles in mind so this may be of use!) - Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thank you. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:MisterWiki

[edit]
 Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul2387

[edit]
I have a few articles in mind that will improve wikipedia - Paul2387 (talk) 15:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The standard for autoreviewer is normally 75 articles; now, some admins have lower standards, but I'm fairly sure that 3 articles is a bit too low. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, as Timotheus Canens said. Please come back, however, when you have created more (75, for example, would be a good goal). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

[edit]

User:Barkeep49

[edit]
The user has been creating a lot of valid stubs. Seems to have a bead on what is appropriate content, and it's not useful to keep the user holding up the WP:NPP queue. - Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Tiptoety talk 08:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amit6

[edit]
I have created a batch of articles about fish species and in future i want to create and develop articles on animal species. Thank you. - Amit6 (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by User:Closedmouth (see here). Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nkf31

[edit]
Editor in process of creating numberous journal stubs for eventual expansion. Has shown that has grasp of MOS and do not see any indications that lead me to believe NPP needs to review editor's additions - Calmer Waters 07:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gilgamesh

[edit]
Gilgamesh has made 296 articles on EnWiki. He has been contributing since March 2004. I think it's quite obvious he can be trusted and there is no need for new page patrollers to waste time reviewing his edits. - The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 01:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Tiptoety talk 02:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tadija

[edit]
As you can see here, i created a lot of articles related to architecture, history and Serbia. And none of those are stub. Also, i am founder of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cultural Property of Great Importance, so lot more articles will come. For more information's, i am here. - Tadija (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been wiki stalked by User:Sarandioti and his numerous socks. You can talk to User:Prodego, or User:Moreschi for more information. All my blocks are related to him. --Tadija (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tadija is involved in a current WQA and now AN/E. --Una Smith (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i was reporter. But that's not forbidden? It's not related to me, i just participated... And that is already over... -Tadija (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done AGF. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mohammad adil

[edit]
Hi, i am Adil, i am an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Early Muslim military history task force, i have created about 45 articles related to the subject of military history and have completely rewritten more then 45 articles, some of them are stubs, which i am now expanding. Other then that i have also various contributions to Second Punic war etc and have plans for expanding articles of Mongol conquest. I also have written more then 5 biographies (though not of living persons !)... - الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:ChildofMidnight

[edit]
An experienced and established user, whose good work I seem to run into quite often while over at NPP. Could an admin consider granting Autorev status to him? While there seem to be some editors who have issues with him/her, I don't think anyone's ever called into question his/her ability as an editor to build articles. Thanks in advance - Bfigura (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Very good nomination, please suggest more like him. Unfortunately COM has declined Autoreviewer less than a month ago and its probably too soon to ask if he has changed his mind. ϢereSpielChequers 21:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nabil rais2008

[edit]
This user have created about 100 articles since march 2009, and is still actively editing wikipedia's projects related to skyscrapers. He got blocked once earlier in his career due to his copy-right violations of image uploading, but he convinced the admins that it was a mistake made by him as he was new and didn't knew the policies regarding using appropriate license for tagging images. Any ways, it was long ago and i think this user can be a helpful auto reviewer due the experience he gained by creating so many articles. - الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. Sorry, but the earlier blocks—combined with continuing issues as evidence by their talk page—lead me to believe it'd be best if their articles stayed on NPP for now. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:HJ Mitchell

[edit]
I note that WP:AUTOREV mentions a large number of articles created and, while my count is not huge, I have a comprehensive understanding of the relevant policies (including, but not limited to, BLP, N, NPOV etc) and all the articles I've created are valid, decent articles (including 2 DYKs and a GA nomination). I'm an experienced new page patroller and I have made good use of the rolblack tool. - HJMitchell You rang? 12:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HJ Mitchell! You're certainly a trusted editor, but this permission is mainly intended for editors who have worked actively in creating new articles, as to trim down work for new page patrollers. Since you've created 18 articles (of the recommended 75) I'm not sure this right would apply to you. Your thoughts? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I'm considered trustworthy and I was aware of the "75" recommendation. I still feel the right would be useful in so far as it would save time for patrollers which could be spent dealing with an article in greater need of attention. There are a number of red links on my "to-do list" that I wish to turn blue and so the right would, again, benefit the NPP. I'll leave the decision in your capable hands, though. HJMitchell You rang? 14:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to {{notdone}} this to be honest. As Arbitrarily0 mentioned, autoreviewer is a purely technical right that has a very specific purpose. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And so  Not done - please continue working on creating articles, and feel free to return when you've created some more, but for now autoreviewer rights wouldn't have much of an impact on you. But don't take any offense to this as an editor, you do good work, keep it up! Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish

[edit]
Self-nom. The number of redirs I create, sometimes in pretty big spurts, is probably an annoyance to new pages patrolers who aren't excluding redirs. I would think I'm a trusted editor by now (4+ years; no blocks, no RfCs on me, no ArbComs, etc.; rollbacker; AWBer). Can't think of any articles I've created that have ever been deleted or even AfDd unsuccessfully for that matter. Sample article: William A. Spinks, which is nearly GA quality at this point and about 98% my work. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 13:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks for your work! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:NorthernThunder

[edit]
(Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to continued contributions especially on behalf of Canada.) - NorthernThunder (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to grant autoreviewer to you, as you've created a huge number of articles, but I'm a little worried about the AfD and speedy deletion warnings all over your talk page. Acalamari 18:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hamiltonstone

[edit]
- Sole Soul (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Tiptoety talk 06:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saqib Qayyum

[edit]
- Saki talk 07:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Hi Saki! As of now you've only created 7 articles of the recommended 75, but feel free to re-request when you come nearer to that number. Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please check it now if I can have auto reviewer access now? --Saki talk 07:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reevaluation is needed, as Saqib has written many articles in succession and is adding to the unpatrolled article backlog. --I dream of horses (T) @ 08:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! Unfortunately, I'm still not convinced that autoreviewer permissions is yet right for you. I understand you've now created 69 articles, however, 62 of them detail visa requirements by country. While your work with this subject is much appreciated, I don't see enough diversity in your article creations to be assured that you have a clear understanding of what topics are encyclopedic and notable. Maybe I'm being a bit too picky, however, so I'll let another administrator make the call here. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to granting it. The visa articles appear valid, and 69 is close to 75. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good good, alright thanks Julian, 'tis  Done then. Sorry for being such a pain in the rear Saqib. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Calmer Waters

[edit]
Looking at getting rather active again with the Bolognia Push and would like to save the NPP the added workload of the numberious redirects and medical stubs that come from this project - Calmer Waters 18:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - thanks for your work, keep it up! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:DaveJB

[edit]
I have created a number of pages on subjects such as animation and association football, and will probably create more in the near future. Have been around Wikipedia for the better part of 6 years now, and hope my history is clean enough to support this request. - DaveJB (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Keep creating articles! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:AshLin

[edit]
Have created many 501 articles, mostly on biodiversity. - AshLin (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 18:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AshLin (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:American Eagle

[edit]
95 articles created (although the list is missing some recent ones), and I create one at least every few days. Thanks. :) - American Eagle (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - thanks a lot for your work, keep it up! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arteyu

[edit]
Created nearly 200 articles over two years period. - Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 00:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - feel free to keep doing a great job! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:bender235

[edit]
(Made more than 75,000 contributions to English and German wikipedia. User:Rettetast downgraded my status because of a stub that was w/out a source for a moment.) - bender235 (talk) 01:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Solved. --bender235 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And  Not done per above. -FASTILY (TALK) 18:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bigmaninthebox

[edit]
(Avid contributor for a while.) - bender235 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ekem

[edit]
I have contributed extensively including many DYKs - Ekem (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Hi, I'm from Portuguese Wikipedia and I'm editing here since May 21, 2008. I have 2,604 in this Wiki, so I would like to receive the status of Autorrevisor to facilitate the work of those who patrol the recent changes and new pages. - OffsBlink (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - your work here is good and greatly appreciated, however, the suggested number of created articles for autoreviewer rights is 75, while you have 14. Feel free to re-request when you closer approach the suggested number. In the mean time, keep up the good work! Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Banaticus

[edit]
Hi there, I've been around for a long time and would appreciate getting autoreviewer permission -- there are enough pages that need to be confirmed already. - Banaticus (talk) 07:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. The autoreviewer permission only autopatrols your own page creations, and is not necessary to assist in new page patrolling, which is what you're expressing an interest in. A tool like Kissle might be useful for you, but manual patrolling is possible at the new pages log. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

[edit]

User:Wifione

[edit]
(I know at 25 created articles, I'm not close to 75; so would not have issues if the permission is refused. Have done NPP to a large extent and realise that as I am proceeding on creating a large list of many unwikified Indian villages, that might create a load on NPPs. Therefore Requesting the permission) - ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alright, since the time I posted this request, now I've reached 31 43 53 65 new articles (not including redirects) created. Just for information....▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 05:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Best ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:The High Fin Sperm Whale

[edit]
I have actually made 68 articles, but there is a delay at toolserver.org. - The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 06:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Fastily, but I think you've made a mistake. The User Rights Log says that I'm a confirmed user, not an autoreviewer. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, will inform Fastily. Acalamari 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wexeb

[edit]
No Vandalism Wexeb → 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - hi Wexeb! It doesn't look like you've created any new articles yet. While I'm happy to hear that you haven't done any vandalism, autoreviewer permissions is purely a technical right that will be happily granted once you've created more articles (the recommended number being 75). Take care, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:nsaa

[edit]
I have broad experience with similar kind of work on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and know quite well the rules governing the English Wikipedia - Nsaa (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done -FASTILY (TALK) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Nsaa (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Reyk

[edit]
I've been here a long time, never trolled or vandalized, or made stupid edits. - Reyk YO! 21:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Acalamari 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled/Archive&oldid=1091461156"