Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Autopatrolled

Sorry, unregistered users cannot be granted permissions due to technical restrictions. Please create an account in order to request user account permissions.
Shortcuts
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 least 25 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.

User:Sswonk

Permission was revoked at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=169754554 . The permission was revoked four months ago before I recently returned after 14 years of absence from the project, please reinstate.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]). — MusikBot talk 15:10, 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 makes this website (on Loretta Lynn: Coal Miner's Daughter) and this website (on Honky Tonk Girl: My Life in Lyrics) reliable sources? Also, since IMDb 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 of Loretta 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 also https://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 see https://chapter16.org/about-us/ and https://www.humanitiestennessee.org/about/our-story/?cn-reloaded=1 publisher of the cited, archived website. I would also consider that as satisfying WP:V.
I did not realize IMDb was unreliable, I used that because it is the single source of the page 38th 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 of Chapter 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 the Honky 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 to a current page. So we are dealing with the WP: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 on Led Zeppelin which was at the time poorly organized but since I left has been promoted to GA status. My opinion is that Loretta 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 have top-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 the Treaty of Southampton notable? voorts (talk/contributions) 21:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sswonk voorts (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 not WP: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 though Treaty of Southampton fills a gap in coverage, without relying on original research. I understand WP: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]
Since it seems like this request is stalling out, I did a few more spot-checks on Lindsay Lou. The writing and sourcing are good for the most part, and notability is clearly established. However, there are citations to Local Spins, which appears to be self-published by one John Sinkevics, as he's the only editor mentioned on the about page, and this page advertising bios on request makes me pause when considering its reliability. On Me & Patsy Kickin' Up Dust, the summary is excessively long, with lots of potentially unencyclopedic detail that is only backed up by primary sources. There's only one review cited — Washington Independent Review of Books — and all of the other sources are interviews or other primary sources, so I'm not seeing how it passes the notability guideline for books.
Sswonk, I think overall that you're doing good work with your article creations, but that it would help for NPP to continue looking over your work for the time being. Autopatrolled editors are expected to create articles that consistently meet community standards for writing, sourcing, and demonstration of notability, and I don't think the consistency is quite there yet. Practice makes perfect, though, and I'm sure an administrator wouldn't mind revisiting this in a few months if you can put together a solid handful of articles. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, AP standards have ballooned in recent years and based on reading this discussion and looking at the examples I see small issues that I think would be worth a second look by NPP folks. Declining per that. Sohom (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I agree much with your assessments or how you back them up, and am disappointed. There is no definition of "NPP people", but they decide that if Loretta Lynn writes a book it is "notable" enough to be included in an encyclopedia with dozens of articles about video game characters? Marginalized and coverage-gap prone subjects will eventually be treated with care. No more writing for a while guys, not worth the depression. Sswonk (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that this conversation has turned you off of writing, Sswonk. I just wanted to clarify that that was not my intention; I chimed in here hoping my feedback would help you improve your work. And believe me, I understand the desire to improve our coverage of underrepresented topics (I've worked at Women in Red and coordinate the Developing Countries WikiContest), but a desire to fight systemic bias does not override our notability guidelines. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any questions, and I'd be happy to help. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:QEnigma

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 in March 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]

User:TheRichic

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 is Francisco Javier Conde de Saro notable? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:20, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ႧႤႧႰႨ ႾႠႰႨ

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]

User:Aeternus

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:Guylaen

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]
 Not done @Guylaen: RE Department of Propaganda in Enemy Countries: CART doesn't have a clear editorial policy and is a volunteer-run website. Why is it a reliable source? Clutch was "created by a team of parents who have or had children attending Emerson Valley Combined School, Milton Keynes" and is almost certainly unreliable. RE Military Intelligence (Research), Grey Dynamics is an independent intelligence company; they're not professional historians and there's no indication this was fact checked. RE Brickendonbury, Herts Memories is a local volunteer-run community history site. I'd like to see a better grasp of reliable sourcing before I grant AP. Courtesy ping @SnowyRiver28 & @Agent VII. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave you to debate their reliability. I wouldn't have included them if I didn't trust them. I did not ask to be autopatrolled, but it felt like winning a prize when I found out what it meant. Genuinely honored to be considered, but I like being a part of the team and having editors. Guylaen (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the point of Clutch though, considering it is where I pulled the bulk of the content on that page: it is actually managed by Open University (note the URL). Guylaen (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guylaen: it doesn't matter that it's managed by Open University. Universities host lots of web pages, some of which are reliable, some of which are not. In this case, it's written by a group of parents without independent fact checking. Reliable sources need to have an independent reputation for fact checking and self-published sources like this generally aren't reliable. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Each CLUTCH project was overseen by a teacher for the local school district before being sent to the Open University, and reviewed by the staff of the local Living History Museum for factual accuracy before publication. Guylaen (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More about CLUTCH: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/open-eye-now-parents-can-catch-up-with-their-kids-1175375.html
The staff at Open University who initiated the project were mainly from the Office for Students with Disabilities.
The insinuation that this is some sort of self published source is kind of insulting to the time and work that these people dedicated to their projects. I have every confidence in this source. Guylaen (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
However, I did delete the grey dynamics source. I forgot I had that in there. I had four sources on the same sentence anyways so it didn't do much to remove it.
As for Herts, you are absolutely correct. Despite the fact that the word "community" in itself does not mean unreliable, it does state on their about page that the County Council does not review for accuracy. Thank you for catching that. I will rectify that as soon as possible.
This is why I like the team approach. I like having people double check my work. I'm sorry that I produce so much for the NPP, but I think the review process makes the articles better. Guylaen (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But CLUTCH is reliable and I will go to bat for it. Guylaen (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, CART is also a reliable source. They are referenced by nearly every professional historian in the field, and have done many events with History UK, HistoryHit, the County archaeology, British MOD, and so on.
Stories about the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team (I did not realize they even have their own article until you made me question this source):
From the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-wiltshire-14048517,
"Since the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team began their investigation in January, they have unearthed a large underground bunker and artefacts."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-35967050
"Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team, a non-profit making unit of volunteer historians who focus on the British Resistance..."
From History UK: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Churchills-Secret-Army/
"It was not until the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team (CART) successfully lobbied for veterans and relatives to take part in the annual Cenotaph Remembrance Sunday March Past in 2013, that there was any form of official recognition of the huge sacrifice they were willing to make in the country’s darkest hours." Guylaen (talk) 23:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michelangelo1992

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 with WP:NBOOK. He's created 135 articles. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Michelangelo1992: I'm a little concerned about overly lengthy quotations. Would you commit to summarizing quotations a bit more? Also, see MOS:SAID. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback! I’ve always trended toward direct quotes to avoid concerns for original research, but I can make an effort to paraphrase more in the future while still citing the original source. I’ll also try to be more mindful of WP:SAID. I thought I was doing fairly well with this, but I am always open to feedback particularly if you have specific suggestions relating to recent articles. Thank you! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled&oldid=1320301183"