Autopatrolled
Requested this permission ~2 months ago, denied because I was mostly creating auto-notable stubs. I think I have expanded the types of articles I create, including well-sourced local pages or biographical entries where I take time to source subjects that do not inherently meet a generic notability criteria. (I still do create auto-notable pages sometimes, but those no longer make up the majority of pages I create.) As a new page reviewer, I got good experience with the notability guidelines reviewing articles during the backlog drive WP:MAY25, and also participating in AfD. Thought about requesting again as I have run into a few of my own pages while reviewing pages that are in topics I contribute to/am interested in. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also wanted to mention that if I am unsure of a subject's notability, I will utilize WP:AFC for my own articles occasionally Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 02:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
 Automated comment This user has had 1 request for autopatrolled declined in the past 90 days ([1]). — MusikBot talk 02:20, 28 June 2025 (UTC)- Came here to request this permission for a different user, but since Yoblyblob is referencing their WP:MAY25 NPP work, it is worth noting that among the re-reviews of each patroller's work, 14/17 of their patrol decisions were approved. Of the remainder, two were drafted/redirected as WP:TOOSOON coverage of 2026 state elections and one was drafted for lacking enough coverage to qualify under WP:NEVENT. Considering they were the fifth most active patroller of the drive, this accuracy is good, not great. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I took note of that during the drive. I may have tried to do too much too soon into being granted the permission, but would like to think I take a lot more care now during reviews. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I have created more than 25 non redirect articles within the past few weeks and 53 non redirects overall. The two mainspace ones that have been deleted were by my own request, thanks to a slip of the "Publish changes" button. Aside from those, all have been approved by the adminteam. I would greatly be thankful to receive this permission. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 17:56, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
- Why is citypopulation.de a reliable source? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Luxtaythe2nd. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Cites its sources all well and proper, and has a full catalogue of references here. They cite the Tuvalu Central Statistics Division for this matter, which conducts a Population and Housing Census once per decade (most recent one being on 12 Dec. 2022, which is the exact date referenced on the website). Additionally, the whole website is organized by a professor of geoinformatics who is clearly a subject matter expert, Thomas Brinkhoff (this is his profile on ResearchGate and on Google Scholar and on the website of an institute he works for). If I could, I would have cited data directly from the CSD, but they do not make their tables for individual settlements available in their data library, rather just the reports. But, citypopulation.de is far more than close enough. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 08:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- You appear to have translated Ski jumping hills in Gdańsk from pl:Skocznie narciarskie w Gdańsku without providing proper attribution in the edit history. Please repair the attribution issue following the instructions at WP:RIA. Please go through other articles that you have translated from any other wiki and repair the attribution for those as well. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Luxtaythe2nd. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Of coruse. I've fixed it and two others as well (adding the translated page template on the talk page). I usually attribute translated articles, but I can be forgetful at times. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 18:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Talk page attribution is insufficient. You need to make a dummy edit for the article history per the instructions at WP:RIA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Alright. Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 10:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts: Done now. (There was actually only one other, the total is two. I dont know what got to me.) Luxtaythe2nd (Talk to me...) 10:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. I have created around 30 well-sourced, policy-compliant articles on the English Wikipedia.
In addition to my contributions here, I am an administrator (sysop) on the Persian Wikipedia (fa.wikipedia), where I have been active for many years, focusing on content creation, vandalism control, and community support.
Granting this right would help reduce the workload of new page patrollers, as my article creations usually meet Wikipedia’s quality standards.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Best regards, Shahnamk (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
- Per WP:NONENG, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance". For In the Mesh, did you search for English-language sources? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also, it appears that you translated the article from fa:چرخدنده (کتاب) without attribution, which is required per Help:Translation#Licensing. Could you please repair the attribution for that article and any others that you translated from fa-wiki without attribution? voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @Shahnamk. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello voorts, thank you very much for your careful review and constructive feedback.
- Regarding WP:NONENG and the article In the Mesh:
- You are absolutely right. I did rely on Persian-language sources since those were the ones I found most comprehensive at the time. However, I will now re-check for reliable English-language sources. If I find equally good English sources, I will integrate them into the article to ensure compliance with WP:NONENG.
- Regarding attribution for translations (e.g., Gear (book)):
- Thank you for pointing this out. I should indeed have provided the proper attribution when translating from fa-wiki. I will promptly fix this by adding the required attribution to the article’s talk page (per Help:Translation#Licensing). I will also review my other translated articles and repair the attribution wherever it is missing.
- I appreciate your guidance, and I will make sure my future contributions are fully compliant with sourcing and licensing requirements.
- Best regards, Shahnam K (Talk) 11:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello, and thank you again User:voorts for your helpful feedback.
- I have now:
- 1. Attribution fixes: Added the required attribution on the talk page of *Gear (book)* (and will continue to do so for any other articles translated from fa-wiki).
- 2. Sources: For *In the Mesh*, I reviewed the sources again and included available reliable English-language sources in compliance with WP:NONENG.
- 3. Future compliance: I will make sure that all future translations contain proper attribution and that, whenever possible, English-language reliable sources are prioritized.
- I truly appreciate your careful review and guidance. Hopefully, these corrections demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia’s policies and ensuring that my future article creations reduce, rather than add to, the workload of new page patrollers.
- Best regards, Shahnam K (Talk) 11:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Shahnamk: you didn't properly attribute. You must add attribution to the page history following the instructions linked to. Also, did you use an LLM to help generate your response to me here? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
As a part of Wikipedia: Tambayan Philippines and the Music Task Force, I would like to request the autopatrolled user right. I have created over 25 articles, most of which are currently live and have been built with careful attention to WP:N, WP:V, and reliable sourcing. And also I understand that the autopatrolled right is meant to ease the workload of new page reviewrs by automatically marking new pages from trusted users as reviewed. Thank you! AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 04:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: AdobongPogi, your article Popo (film) need to address this. Administrators will flag that and it might affect your request as autopatrolled. But i will Weak Support for this. ROY is WAR Talk! (Non-administrator comment) 08:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- @AdobongPogi: Why is filmkrant.nl a reliable source? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hello @Voorts, since the Dutch online film magazine Filmkrant has been publishing since 1981 and is run by experienced film critics. I'm using this source because in the article I created on Richard Raaphorst (who directed the film Popo) is also cited there, see #17 source. I also submitted that article for a GA nomination, which was promoted yesterday. AdobongPogi masarap 🍛 22:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
I have created more than 25 articles, over several years. I learnt over time to understand the notability criteria well. My new pages do not require attention from patrollers. Only one page I created is marked as deleted (it was recreated under a slightly different name). I have overall over 1000 edits. Thank you for the consideration. Queenofboston (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Queenofboston: Thank you for your contributions. Spot-checking one of your creations at random, Michelle Meagher, indicated direct copying from a source (report) and non-neutral prose ("Meagher was confronted with a crisis of consciousness", also closely paraphrased from the source). I'll leave a message on your talk page with more information about copyright considerations on Wikipedia, and I would recommend reading about the encyclopedic tone that should be used in articles. For these reasons, I don't think autopatrolled would be appropriate for you at the moment. Please let me know if you have any questions. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- @TechnoSquirrel69 the article you singled out for copyright issues was published in 2024. The Michelle Meagher Wikipedia entry was created by me in 2023 with the contested phrase in it. So the 2024 article copied the 2023 Wikipedia page not the other way round. I did not infringe any copyright of the 2024 article as it did not exist at the time of the page creation. Queenofboston (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a date on the Green European Journal page, although it was only archived in the Wayback Machine in 2024. Even leaving that aside, though, there remain the issues of neutrality and close paraphrasing.I looked at another one of your creations for more information. Your most recent one, Aline Blankertz, has statements without citations, and doesn't demonstrate the subject's notability — the existing sources are either primary sources, like interviews or podcast appearances, or don't have significant coverage of the subject. However, I will note that I found no copyright-related issues here. I maintain that it would be beneficial for your creations to get a once-over from new pages patrol. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
- The information you flagged as missing citation was contained in the sources cited immediately prior, I now double-cite them in the two instances you flagged.
- I am not saying that my pages cannot be improved but my pages bring additions to Wikipedia. I focus on women as it is an objective of Wikipedia to re-balance the coverage away from a bias favoring pages of men Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, I believe this is valuable contribution. There are profiles of Aline Blankertz in leading German media outlets, only one source is a podcast and it is produced by an established German media outlet, that is a valid source in my understanding, it is not a podcast produced by the subject. None of the sources in that article are authored by the subject of the article. My pages do not have copyrights issues, as now clarified. I use some sources in foreign languages but it is not the policy of Wikipedia to disregard or downgrade sources that are in foreign languages for purposes of notability. Queenofboston (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Queenofboston: why is Cecilia Rikap notable? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Rikap has reliable substantial coverage independent from the subject, for example profile in El Pais, the leading Spanish news outlet, she also published three books. Queenofboston (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Queenofboston: The El Pais article is mostly an interview, with maybe a paragraph of independent analysis. Being an author can indicate that a subject may be notable under WP:NAUTHOR, but it's not clear to me that that applies in this case. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also, why is Nai Lee Kalema notable? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The page as I set it up was modified by another editor that added sources that were not independent from the subject and deleted sources I have identified and listed. Other editors reversed parts of the page and I now added back some of the deleted references. There is coverage by external sources, 12 references are now listed on the page. I understand that Nai Lee Kalema is not a clear-cut case in terms of notability, in part my objective is to support a Wikipedia initiative to reduce the imbalance between pages dedicated to men compared to pages dedicated to women, which bias also exists in external coverage. Queenofboston (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I see the article has now been nominated for deletion. I tend to agree with the nom there. I don't believe that you have a sufficient grasp of the notability guidelines to warrant granting autopatrolled.
 Not done. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you I appreciate the explanation and understand the decision. Queenofboston (talk) 07:15, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
After a few months break, I have decided to become active on the English Wikipedia once more. In this new period of activity, I look forward to creating new articles of high quality. As a New page patroller myself, I know how much of a backlog there is. Since I have created a considerable amount of clean articles in the past (mostly related to history, geography and entomology), and am hoping to make many more in the future, I am requesting the Autopatrolled right to slightly ease the work of patrollers such as myself. Thank you! UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:44, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
- Ref 7 in France–Suriname border has JSTOR as the name of the journal. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:36, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Memer15151. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Apologies, I was not active yesterday due to school-related conditions. I have changed ref 5, which I believe is the source you meant, to the cite journal format, ensuring that I don't make the website, JSTOR, the actual name of the journal. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:09, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Memer15151: why is Sovereign Limits reliable? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- At this time I cannot access the webpage due to restrictions on my school laptop, however I do think your skepticism is justified so I have gone ahead and changed the source to the official U.N. website. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Also I have added a citation to the website of the Ambassador of France to Suriname. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I am returning to request full rights after the three-month trial period expired. During the trial period, I encountered no issues and successfully created many articles to contribute to Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Myanmar. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Hteiktinhein: I notice that you routinely cite YouTube videos. Why is this source from Kyaukthittar Pagoda reliable? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:41, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts Thank you very much for your response. You asked whether the YT reference is reliable. I would say 'yes', because it is a documentary-style storytelling piece from Myanmar Celebrity Media, which is considered Myanmar's largest entertainment media outlet after the 2021 Myanmar coup d'état. Before the coup, they operated a website channel, but now they only operate a YouTube video channel. After the coup, around 90% of entertainment media outlets were shut down, leaving only a few video-based entertainment news sources and other media only focus on the war and political news. I used this video version as a source for Wikipedia because it comes from a verified major media outlet. According to WP:YOUTUBE-EL, "If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher), then a copy of the source on YouTube is still considered reliable." Therefore, I sometimes use YouTube sources when needed. Best regards. Hteiktinhein (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do they have editorial standards? An "entertainment" outlet is quite different from news media. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:40, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts I don't think their current website maintains editorial standards... When I checked, the remaining site did not mention any editor's name and only posted event and celebrity photos with very brief descriptions, without detailed news coverage. It seems the current version of their website is mostly for show and not suitable to use as a source for Wikipedia. If someone used it, sure I will remove. However, on their YouTube channel, they provide more detailed reporting and include the interviewer's name in the hashtags. Therefore, I think their place-documentary programs, where they interview or trace origin with local historians or highly venerated monks, are acceptable to use. Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Since I don't speak/read Burmese, I can't really independently evaluate whether I find the source credible, and I can't really easily research if they had editorial standards in the past. I'll let another admin evaluate your request. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Anyway, thank you very much for your question and concerns @Voorts. I always welcome feedback or comments from senior editors, and I am eager to learn from others. Please correct me if I am wrong. I really do not want to use YouTube as a source; I only turn to it when there is no other choice (Myanmar is now a low-resource media environment, and it is difficult to find website-based reports bcs all gone [2], [3]). My Wiki mentor once told me that YouTube could be used as a source if the channel is verified and has a media license under the Myanmar government. After learning this, I began to cite videos from YouTube only when they came from licensed media.
- If media license–holder outlets that report on notable Burmese celebrities are not considered reliable sources, I am happy to agree with that. I have used YouTube sources in only a few of the articles I created (especially on temple or pagoda topics), and if this is still unclear, I am willing to remove or replace them with other references.
- I believe MC (Myanmar Celebrity) is one of the most popular celebrity and entertainment news outlets in Myanmar under license, although its website is now low in editorial standards and seems focused mostly on monetization and viewership (some reports on cele may gossip). The second most popular online outlet is Stun Magazine. To give a sense of MC's influence in Myanmar, as Burmese saying goes: “Someone can become a celebrity if Myanmar Celebrity features them.” Thank you again for reviewing my request. Hteiktinhein (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- The issue is that celebrity/gossip outlets tend not to be particularly reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I partly agree. Sometimes they report on celebrity conflicts, which feels more like gossip, but most of their reports are focused on celebrity life and news. They also have multiple programs such as travel, documentary, food reviews, daily life, and program of "forgotten celebrities". Some of these are actually very good reports.
- For ordinary lifestyle interviews with celebrities, I don't think those should be used as sources because I know they are not independent. But for other local news reports, I think we can consider using them for Wikipedia. In my view, the reliability of such MC sources should be decided on a case-by-case basis at each article's talk page. How do you think? Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts As of now, MC is a questionable source, and the reliability of that outlet still we cannot be decided. Therefore, removing it is better now, and I have replaced it with another source on Kyaukthittar Pagoda. You can verify again, and if you have any concerns about this, kindly ping me. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
@Hteiktinhein Have you used that or similar sources in other articles? voorts (talk/contributions) 18:46, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts I think I used MC only for this article. I’m checking my temple articles, and if I find any, I will replace them. If you notice any, please ping me. Cheers. Hteiktinhein (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Voorts I have cleared MC sources from the article. I only found two in my contributions. In the future, I will not use MC since the reliability of that media is not clear at this time. However, if someone else uses it, I think it is best to discuss on the talk page and decide on a case-by-case basis. If you don’t have any further concerns, please review my request again. If there are concerns, I cannot follow up right now...it's already midnight here i now prepare to sleep but I will respond in the morning. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Hteiktinhein: have you used similar gossip/celebrity news sites in any other articles you've written, not just articles about temples. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, there are no more. I checked all my articles quickly with XTools and also cleaned the Media Queen source, the same as MC. Now I believe I have removed all celebrity news channel references from my articles. You can check as well, and if I missed anything, please ping me here. @Voorts Hteiktinhein (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Especially in last few months has created a large number of quality articles. Clearly notable people; academic papers written about each one. I've GA reviewed two of their articles, really good work. grapesurgeon (seefooddiet) (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Grapesurgeon I agree, slow steady good creations.
 Done KylieTastic (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
|
