Wikipedia talk:Reviewing/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Redirect page
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Redirect to:

  • From a page move: This is a redirect from a page that has been moved (renamed). This page was kept as a redirect to avoid breaking links, both internal and external, that may have been made to the old page name.

Lack of signature and odd tone of Template:Unreviewednote-NPF

{{Unreviewednote-NPF}} (automatically sent to a user when unreviewing their article, when the unreviewer has left a note for them) lacks a signature. (Example of use here.) Possibly this is because it can't decide who the message is from - although it opens with a title of "I have unreviewed a page you curated" (and is created as an edit by the unreviewer), it goes on to refer to the unreviewer in the third person.

Would this make more sense as a straight, signed copy of {{Unreviewednonote-NPF}}, with the "note" added in italics instead of the "Thank you.", as is the case with many other templates? --McGeddon (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concerning Wikipedia:Deferred changes

There is currently an ongoing Request for Comment regarding whether or not we should defer possible vandalism to Special:PendingChanges and, if so, how to implement it. Please see Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Request for comment 2016 for the RfC. Thank you. — Gestrid (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The RfC has closed, and it has passed in its entirety. See the closer's remarks for more information about implementation. — Gestrid (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Deferred changes/Implementation for more on how this will be implemented. — Gestrid (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC concerning PC2 usage

Please comment at the proposal to lower the auto-accept threshold for PC2 and establish usage, thanks. — Andy W. (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reviewing → Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes – To avoid confusion with what is done by New Page Reviewers, AfC reviewers, Good Article reviewers, Peer reviewers, and reviewing of Wikipedia content or edits in the general sense. : Noyster (talk), 13:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Today's Featured Article "view history" toolbar link

Just a note for reviewers interested in today's Featured Article. TFA History Link is a user script which adds a link to the top toolbar for viewing Special:History/Today's Featured Article in a Recent Changes format. It is primarily designed for Featured Article contributors, reviewers and recent changes patrollers to quickly see TFA revisions. The source can be found here. Lourdes 11:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Lourdes, thanks for this information but was it meant to be posted here? Although it's called Wikipedia talk:Reviewing, this talk page is concerned only with reviewing edits to articles under Pending changes protection. It seems quite unlikely that an article under this form of protection would come up for TFA. The potential for confusion over the different meanings of "reviewing" is exactly why a change of title is being considered in the section just above this one: Noyster (talk), 19:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Noyster how are you doing? Good to see you around. And yeah absolutely. Do please remove this message whenever you want. No sweat. See you then. Lourdes 04:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Information on Bruce Lee Page

I am a new member. I became a member specifically to correct many inaccuracies regarding, Bruce Lee, within the "Bruce Lee" page. A few of the numerous mistakes are in reference to, but certainly not limited to, many of the individual entries made on the page, surrounding the circumstances of his death. I am a long and loyal fan of Mr. Lee and the morals and principles for which he stood. Though, as it is, the corrections to the various inconsistencies in question, may easily be found in any number of 'serious' documentaries that exist either, online or in print. Therefore, it is my hope that some deliberate and timely action be taken to make right, these egregious errors.

Regards, B. BISTROBILLY (talk) 06:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BISTROBILLY, welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to suggest changes to the article on Bruce Lee, you should post to the article's talk page, explaining what you think is wrong with the article and how it should be changed. Please refer to reliable sources for any change that you want to be made. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changes not showing up in a Google search result.

Notable Decendents

I see that someone has removed ALL NOTABLE DESCENDANTS. I feel that should be reversed.   Not sure of the qualifications of this “editor”. Truthspeaker60 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthspeaker60: this discussion belongs on the talk page of the article in question, not here. Any editor can remove content if they think it is inappropriate; for example, if it cannot be verified by reference to reliable sources. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wham2001: Truthspeaker did nothing at all before or after this post, nor was the article mentioned above. We can not do anything further.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When will the pending changes from a page be approved?

Hello everyone. There is a page that has pending changes for some time now and i was wondering when will they be approved, checked? The page i am referring to is: https://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atradius&stable=0&redirect=no Many thanks in advance 11:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC) Clau_clau19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clau clau19 (talk • contribs)

Did you mean to post this query here? This is the English Wikipedia, but your query is about a page at the Finnish Wikipedia. RivertorchFIREWATER 12:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is the page i want to have checked. sorry i thought you can post for any of them here. can you please direct me where i can ask about this particular page? thank you Clau clau19 (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Clau clau19[reply]
If you speak Finnish, you might begin by asking here. Each language's Wikipedia is its own separate project with its own policies and permissions, so unfortunately it's unlikely that anyone who will read your post on this page will be able to help. RivertorchFIREWATER 13:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Rivertorchfor your help. Have a great friday. Clau clau19 (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)Clau clau19[reply]

New section

Hello I need help editing wikipedia for Val Valentino who requested a few clarifications and correcting some information that was misinterpreted. I have tried to make the changes before for him but it was reverted. I would like to do this correctly to avoid any issues. Who can help with this? Thank you. Kathleen Birney (karmalogicka)

What article are you trying to edit? El_C 01:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One supposes it was Val Valentino. User:KarmaLogically, your query is beyond the scope of this talk page. I've left a response on your user talk page. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 28#Merging pending changes reviewer with other user groups

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 28#Merging pending changes reviewer with other user groups. Mz7 (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable reasons

The expression "reasonable reasons" (in section "Reviewing edits by a single user") is somewhat tautological. I suggest the simpler "if there are no good reasons" or "if there is no good reason". 188.143.76.147 (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not understanding the process

I am a reviewer and I have some pages in my watchlist marked as needing review. Now, despite having read this page, I can't figure out what I'm supposed to do about it. I read I'm supposed to somehow reach a diff between the article's current version and the last approved one, but I'm not finding out how to get there. Also, it's never made clear whether approval is an explicit action or you're just supposed to let the change "slip by" and it's up to someone else (probably with higher privileges) to provide the final approval. Any help will be appreciated. --uKER (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

uKER If you go to the article flagged as needing review, there will be a blue bar across the top with the words "There is 1 pending revision awaiting review" (or greater number), with a hyperlink at "1 pending revision". That hyperlink will take you to the diff you want, with a box at the top of the screen offering options to "Accept revision" or "Revert changes". If there is a whole string of changes by different users, it may be better to go to page history and bring up the diffs one by one. Try this & let me know if you still have any difficulty: Noyster (talk), 15:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Well, that figures. I'm not seeing said bar. Not on the article itself, not on a diff of the article, not when seeing a particular edit's snapshot. And yes, the article appears orange and tagged with an r in my watchlist. Any ideas? --uKER (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! That's not indicating a pending change – it's yet another meaning of "needing review": to wit, an edit that's been flagged by a process called ORES as possibly problematic. ORES works somewhat similarly to ClueBot, but detects more edits than ClueBot and doesn't do any reverting itself. Edits under pending changes in a watchlist are indicated by [pending revisions] appearing after the article title: Noyster (talk), 17:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. In that case, how do I provide the review that the article says it needs? --uKER (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just check the edit the same way you would any other: if the edit is OK do nothing or send a welcome or a thanks; if it's a bad edit revert and warn as appropriate: Noyster (talk), 17:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks! --uKER (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog empty

No Backlog is Best Backlog

I have to say good job to all Pending Changes Reviewers! At 2:15, 17 May 2018 (UTC), the Backlog had a population of 0 pending edits. It might have happened before, but I personally have never seen that. Good job to all, and keep up the good work.

Double Plus Ungood (talk) 02:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Double Plus Ungood! If you would like to have an automatically updated display of the backlog on your user page, just insert {{Pending Changes backlog}} to display this:

>Low pending changes backlog: 4 pages according to DatBot as of 17:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
: Noyster (talk), 07:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing multiple edits

The page says "diff from the latest accepted revision to the last revision by the first user, and so on". I understood this to mean that that I should start reviewing from the earliest pending change and make my way to the most recent one. However, the software does not allow this. What am I doing wrong? --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 18:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a Reviewer Section

It has been quite a few years since this right was created. Do you think we could remove the references to the trial period and such? -- Dolotta (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New userscript

Hi all. Just wanted to post that I created a user script (User:DannyS712/Pending changes) that adds a link to Special:PendingChanges to the interaction portlet directly above recent changes (in the vector skin) for easier access. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy IP Pending changes blocks

After the question of school blocks was recently raised at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HickoryOughtShirt?4, a question was asked at the idea lab Village Pump about whether instead of blocking Proxy IPs, such as at schools or libraries, if they should be subject to pending changes instead to filter out vandalism from constructive edits (Except for those owned by the Church of Scientology, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. The reasoning behind the proposal is that while blocking such IPs prevent vandalism, it also blocks out any constructive edits from such IPs, which there are, and pending changes would give them a fair chance at making constructive edits while blocking out vandalism. Any thoughts on this, and whether such a proposal would be technically feasible? Thanks for your input. DrewieStewie (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing/Archive_3"