Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled
Autopatrolled
User:Ednabrenze
- Ednabrenze (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 regularly create new articles until I took a break to focus on work and studies. I have now concluded the studies and have retuned to creating new articles. I am requesting this right to help bring down the large number of articles waiting for reviewers attentions as articles I create will no longer join the queue if this is granted. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Not done Your creations are generally ok, no red flags, but they come off a little bare-bones and should probably still be reviewed. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment. You said the articles are generally ok "but they come off a little bare-bones and should probably still be reviewed". Are they policy or guideline breaches? Could you please explain what this mean so that I can learn from it. But if you're referring to the size of the articles, I write based on the material available and what could be supported with reliable independent secondary sources. If there are no policy breaches, I request that you reconsider it. Cheers! Ednabrenze (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Just so you know, Just Step Sideways, I've had a further look following Ednabrenze's request. I didn't get any further than their latest article. I edited the article in small steps so that the edit summaries give a detailed report what needed fixing. Each edit dealt with one to three issues only. In total, I made eighteen edits. Ednabrenze, the expectation is that editors who get autopatrolled are able to consistently produce clean articles that are free of issues. The Charles Okah edits show that you aren't there yet. Schwede66 10:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment. You said the articles are generally ok "but they come off a little bare-bones and should probably still be reviewed". Are they policy or guideline breaches? Could you please explain what this mean so that I can learn from it. But if you're referring to the size of the articles, I write based on the material available and what could be supported with reliable independent secondary sources. If there are no policy breaches, I request that you reconsider it. Cheers! Ednabrenze (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
