![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Please direct comments to Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC_3#Discussion_on_draft_reviewers_guideline after that RfC is open. Gigs ( talk) 20:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The logo, File:Wikipedia_Reviewer.svg, illustrating the page is, as an across-the-pond friend of mine would say, bloody awful. It looks like a direct rip-off of the CBS logo ( File:CBS_logo.svg), it carries dystopian connotations ( Big Brother is watching you), and it's apparently derived from a graphic associated with Flagged Revisions (a feature that by overwhelming consensus we have decided not to use use on the English Wikipedia). Now, maybe pending changes is Flagged Revisions Lite and maybe it isn't, but I, for one, don't want to be reminded of the possibility every time I look at this page. Anyone else support giving it the heave-ho? Rivertorch ( talk) 16:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there a list somewhere of all articles in which pending changes is in place? Not just those with unreviewed changes (which most of the time I have checked, is between zero and two), but all those in which PC is in force. I am curious to see how many there are and what they are. Neutron ( talk) 02:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is this sentence phrased this way? Previously, criteria for requesting the reviewer permission were as follows: Does this mean to suggest that the standards are now different? Is it not pretty much what we should still be going by? delldot ∇. 01:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems that a lot of users (mostly new ones) confuse pending changes reviewers with Wikipedians who review articles for creation. What if either of the two things (one is an additional user right; the other just some wikiwork anyone can get involved in) is referred to as differently? Because people who review articles for creation are referred to as reviewers almost everywhere: on AfC pages, talk pages of articles created via AfC, etc. smtchahal (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Did I have to accept my own edit, rather than auto-confirmed? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed some confusion about the instructions for not accepting a revision (although I lost the diff and can't remember where it was). There was some confusion over whether the reasons listed here were the exclusive times a revision should be rejected:
You should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find that:
- it conflicts with the Biographies of Living People policy
- it contains vandalism or patent nonsense
- it contains obvious copyright violations
- it contains legal threats, personal attacks or libel.
Perhaps we can come up with some better wording to clarify this. Inks.LWC ( talk) 15:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I find in reviewing that this type of issue is the most difficult to address. I'll give two examples, and how I handled them:
You may have noted that I have modified the interface messages MediaWiki:Revreview-reject-text-revto and MediaWiki:Revreview-reject-summary-cur (and a few others). I'd welcome comments on those. Cenarium ( talk) 22:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Had anyone heard of, or would consider building an automated tool for reviewing. I think some similar functionality to the AFC helper tool. It would be great to be able to accept/reject a change and also post a message to the user's talk page, either warning about vandalism or saying something like, "Thanks for your edit, I accepted it but it would be great if you could add a source...". Some other functionality would be to cycle through revisions when there are more than one to accept them individually. Possibly to accept and then open the page for editing too Jamesmcmahon0 ( talk) 12:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed an IP keeps undoing reverted pending changes at Allyson Robinson that have been declined because the IP's edits violate WP:BLP. If I keep rejecting them, can I be dinged for edit warring? I have dropped a note on the talk page telling them to stop it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Whether edits are pending or not has no bearing on the edit warring policy, all edits are treated the same. The 3RR applies or it does not apply, in case of vandalism it does not apply, in case of BLP it depends. Having the ability to review edits doesn't modify the relationship to other users when it comes to editing or reverting. There is no 'rejection' of edits; edits can only be reverted, overwritten or left alone. Independently of that, reviewers can accept edits, provided they are acceptable, but no obligation can exist. Cenarium ( talk) 19:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the section titled Purpose of Reviewing be changed to Overview. This is because the section contains info on the purpose, the process, how reviewer permissions are granted and removed. Therefore the current title is misleading. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that "unaccept" means simple reversion of the just-accepted change? If so, then:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Most people are not going to understand that reversing an acceptance of an edit is not referring to reverting the edit. I put in a brief example sentence that clarified that by noting that one could accept the edit and then revert it. My addition was taken out on the grounds that those are two unrelated things. That's just the point...they are two unrelated things, and without something like that, that paragraph would be confusing to and misread by most people. North8000 ( talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know why there is a higher standard to remove the reviewer useright than there is to remove any of the other admin granted rights? According to WP:Reviewer#Overview the right can only be removed by an admin after community discussion whereas all the others (eg rollback, autopatrolled, account creator) can be revoked by any admin and template editor needs criteria to be meet. It seems strange that a userright we give out quite liberally requires the most effort to remove. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that when Cluebot reverts vandalism on a PC-protected page, the revision is auto-accepted... and yet the page continues to show under Pending Changes and continues to show pending revisions under the article's history page. The revisions cannot be accepted via the normal form, although a "Unaccept revision" button is available. I could edit and save the article with no changes to accept a new revision, but that feels kludgey. What's the correct way to address? -- ferret ( talk) 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I accepted this revision because it didn't technically violate the reviewing guideline, but I included some pertinent comments that I couldn't then find in the edit history. What is the purpose of the comments (if they don't show up in the edit summary or history) and how/ where then can they be viewed? Roberticus talk 03:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The comment goes to the page's review log. The comment is meant to only be related to reviewing itself; where you'd like to leave a comment on article talk, you have to do so by hand. -- Gryllida ( talk) 07:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
An edit that I accepted is being scrutinized by another editor, and since I'm pretty new at reviewing I'd like to ask for advice. There is a detailed discussion on my talk page but the summary is that an article on a K-pop group is PC1 protected, a new editor adds birthdays of the group members to a table listing the members, and the edit is up for review. I see the edit, verify the dates by way of the group members' individual wikilinked bios which are properly sourced, and accept the edit. Another editor takes issue with the source not being provided inline and reverts, letting me know that I should not have accepted the edit. In my consideration, since the information added was verifiable by way of the linked bios, the edit was not a violation of WP:BLP and there was no reason to reject. I had noted this in my review summary but neither of us knows how to find it. Should I have rejected the edit? Ivanvector ( talk) 13:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a 'soft block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. My draft is located here and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. This also involves a new usergroup, although this is not strictly necessary for it to work. Cenarium ( talk) 17:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
How does one become a reviewer? I wanted to edit an article, but it seems my changes might take a bit to get to if there is a backlog. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is now available at Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, it has been thoroughly rewritten. I welcome all opinions, though it isn't yet the time for a definitive determination of consensus, so this is really about first impressions or suggesting modifications and clarifications. In light of previous PC discussions, consensus should preferably be assessed in an organized RFC, or it gets unwieldy, so I've made a draft for it, I also invite comments on it. Feel free to copy edit and such both of those. Cenarium ( talk) 22:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone got a good Image of Brakpan Skyline ?{{Reflist} Brakpan Skyline Image} Davinciji ( talk) 13:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Davinciji (
talk •
contribs)
13:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Its useful data Praveenkumarchrg ( talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If an edit is otherwise neutral and has information not in the article but the writing quality (grammatical errors, etc.) stemming from non-native speaker are of such an extent that the article's overall quality suffers dramatically and would require rewriting by someone with specialist knowledge of the topic, should it be accepted or rejected? I didn't see anything about this in the archives. My sense of the rule is that there's nothing that does not say accept, except for the fact that the quality of the encyclopedia would suffer from acceptance (which is a sort of IAR reason for reject). Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The article which was created for Integra Global, the international private medical insurance provider was rejected for the second time on 12 November. I am writing to dispute this rejection as I believe that there are sufficient sources as evidence of the subject's notability.
I can see that other private insurers have been approved to enter the Wikipedia open space, Now Health International, Bupa & Cigna to name a few. I also think that the basis of disapproval of my article is unfair because although there are less sources listed than the aforementioned insurance groups, Integra Global should not be penalised because it is a younger and smaller company. The third party sources that have been included do however prove that Integra Global is a notable company and one that should be given the right to be included in your encyclopedia.
I ask you to reconsider your decision and allow this article to be published. Expat Audience ( talk) 10:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
When a user makes and edit and then reverts it again, the changes still appear on Special:PendingChanges for review. Is it technically possible to avoid this (as it seems unnecessary – no net change was made to the article), or is there a reason to still have them reviewed? Gap9551 ( talk) 23:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I am a reviewer, and I know what to do when I find there is one edit awaiting review. But what am I meant to do if there are several? I have tried handling the oldest one first, and handling the newest one first; neither produces the results I would expect. Handling them all at once seems impracticable, as I may want to accept some and revert others. I am surprised that the page gives no guidance on this. Maproom ( talk) 12:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Under what circumstances might it be considered appropriate and useful for someone to leave comments for a reviewer, and how should that be done?
Might this article benefit from a brief section with a title something like "How to leave comments for a reviewer"?
I ask, because on 2020-04-02 I added a section on " Violations of the NPT" to the article on " Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". On 2020-04-04 I saw an edit by User:14.201.99.159 that cited an article by Noam Chomsky that included what I felt was poorly worded and misrepresented what Chomsky had said. That inspired me to substantially revise that section, citing that Chomsky article. When I posted that revision, I was surprised to see the message, "The latest accepted version was reviewed on 2020-04-02. There are 7 pending revisions awaiting review." Those 7 include 5 by User:14.201.99.159 followed by two by me. I thought about leaving a comment for the reviewer but decided against it, not knowing what to say. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 04:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently a change was added without consensus
here which added Please note that when reviewing
days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per
WP:DOYCITE.
I feel this goes against
General criteria and
Acceptable edits and as such removed it. It does not fit any of the exsisting General criteria and is directly opposed to the Acceptable edits part that states It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand.
PackMecEng (
talk)
02:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.So changing the whole scope of what pending change is to something that contradicts it is obviously unacceptable. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand. Which is why you will notice at WP:PC and WP:PCPP they do not use verifiability as a criteria. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate contentand
Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the edit. It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed aboveor the essay WP:PCC which states
The main reason for the above limitations is the position that reviewers find themselves in. Those working through a reviewer backlog are often not subject matter experts. They are not in a position to review edits for validity. If they did engage in such behavior, they risk immersing themselves in content disputes in every article they touch. We want to encourage reviewers, not punish them for volunteering to review edits by immersing them into disputes. By sticking to the clear cases, we avoid this negative effect.It also goes against what is acceptable for placing an article under pending change as it does not fit any of the criteria. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion for a formal RFC at VPP, please feel free to adjust wording as needed: Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE.?
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.WP:DOYCITE and WP:DOYSTYLE were updated to include that language.In July 2019, the language
Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE.was added to WP:RPC. There has been an objection to the addition of this language on the grounds that it contradicts WP:RPC, specifically
It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting.
Hello friends. I've got a couple hundred PC reviews under my belt, and I'm starting to see all the common scenarios pretty clearly now.
I'd like to suggest that we add an "Optional criteria" section to the guideline, where we can uncontroversially put "suggestions" for common scenarios, without needing to modify the General criteria (aka the minimum criteria/strict criteria). Here's a link to my draft. Wikipedia:Tips for pending changes reviewers. Transcluded below:
This page is an optional, non-binding list of tips, suggestions, and criteria for pending changes reviewers to apply while doing pending changes patrol. This is in addition to the required criteria laid out at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes § General criteria. Accept or revert?The question to think of when reviewing an edit is If this page was not pending-changes protected, do you think it would be reverted? If the answer is yes, then revert the edit. If the answer is no, then accept it. Also keep in mind these particular exceptions to the rule:
User talk pages
Other tips
Most active reviewersLog in, click "Fork", then click "Submit query" to get updated results.
|
These are "de facto" practices that are not clearly stated to brand new reviewers, but that I have discovered while doing reviewing. Therefore I feel it would be good to document these. Thoughts? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I was trying to accept an edit today but did not have the buttons to do so, even though I'm an admin. After I added myself to the reviewer group, I have privileges. Is this an intended change or a bug in the code? — C.Fred ( talk) 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Please direct comments to Wikipedia:PC2012/RfC_3#Discussion_on_draft_reviewers_guideline after that RfC is open. Gigs ( talk) 20:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
The logo, File:Wikipedia_Reviewer.svg, illustrating the page is, as an across-the-pond friend of mine would say, bloody awful. It looks like a direct rip-off of the CBS logo ( File:CBS_logo.svg), it carries dystopian connotations ( Big Brother is watching you), and it's apparently derived from a graphic associated with Flagged Revisions (a feature that by overwhelming consensus we have decided not to use use on the English Wikipedia). Now, maybe pending changes is Flagged Revisions Lite and maybe it isn't, but I, for one, don't want to be reminded of the possibility every time I look at this page. Anyone else support giving it the heave-ho? Rivertorch ( talk) 16:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Is there a list somewhere of all articles in which pending changes is in place? Not just those with unreviewed changes (which most of the time I have checked, is between zero and two), but all those in which PC is in force. I am curious to see how many there are and what they are. Neutron ( talk) 02:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is this sentence phrased this way? Previously, criteria for requesting the reviewer permission were as follows: Does this mean to suggest that the standards are now different? Is it not pretty much what we should still be going by? delldot ∇. 01:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems that a lot of users (mostly new ones) confuse pending changes reviewers with Wikipedians who review articles for creation. What if either of the two things (one is an additional user right; the other just some wikiwork anyone can get involved in) is referred to as differently? Because people who review articles for creation are referred to as reviewers almost everywhere: on AfC pages, talk pages of articles created via AfC, etc. smtchahal (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Did I have to accept my own edit, rather than auto-confirmed? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed some confusion about the instructions for not accepting a revision (although I lost the diff and can't remember where it was). There was some confusion over whether the reasons listed here were the exclusive times a revision should be rejected:
You should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find that:
- it conflicts with the Biographies of Living People policy
- it contains vandalism or patent nonsense
- it contains obvious copyright violations
- it contains legal threats, personal attacks or libel.
Perhaps we can come up with some better wording to clarify this. Inks.LWC ( talk) 15:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I find in reviewing that this type of issue is the most difficult to address. I'll give two examples, and how I handled them:
You may have noted that I have modified the interface messages MediaWiki:Revreview-reject-text-revto and MediaWiki:Revreview-reject-summary-cur (and a few others). I'd welcome comments on those. Cenarium ( talk) 22:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Had anyone heard of, or would consider building an automated tool for reviewing. I think some similar functionality to the AFC helper tool. It would be great to be able to accept/reject a change and also post a message to the user's talk page, either warning about vandalism or saying something like, "Thanks for your edit, I accepted it but it would be great if you could add a source...". Some other functionality would be to cycle through revisions when there are more than one to accept them individually. Possibly to accept and then open the page for editing too Jamesmcmahon0 ( talk) 12:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed an IP keeps undoing reverted pending changes at Allyson Robinson that have been declined because the IP's edits violate WP:BLP. If I keep rejecting them, can I be dinged for edit warring? I have dropped a note on the talk page telling them to stop it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Whether edits are pending or not has no bearing on the edit warring policy, all edits are treated the same. The 3RR applies or it does not apply, in case of vandalism it does not apply, in case of BLP it depends. Having the ability to review edits doesn't modify the relationship to other users when it comes to editing or reverting. There is no 'rejection' of edits; edits can only be reverted, overwritten or left alone. Independently of that, reviewers can accept edits, provided they are acceptable, but no obligation can exist. Cenarium ( talk) 19:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest the section titled Purpose of Reviewing be changed to Overview. This is because the section contains info on the purpose, the process, how reviewer permissions are granted and removed. Therefore the current title is misleading. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming that "unaccept" means simple reversion of the just-accepted change? If so, then:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 12:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Most people are not going to understand that reversing an acceptance of an edit is not referring to reverting the edit. I put in a brief example sentence that clarified that by noting that one could accept the edit and then revert it. My addition was taken out on the grounds that those are two unrelated things. That's just the point...they are two unrelated things, and without something like that, that paragraph would be confusing to and misread by most people. North8000 ( talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know why there is a higher standard to remove the reviewer useright than there is to remove any of the other admin granted rights? According to WP:Reviewer#Overview the right can only be removed by an admin after community discussion whereas all the others (eg rollback, autopatrolled, account creator) can be revoked by any admin and template editor needs criteria to be meet. It seems strange that a userright we give out quite liberally requires the most effort to remove. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 08:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that when Cluebot reverts vandalism on a PC-protected page, the revision is auto-accepted... and yet the page continues to show under Pending Changes and continues to show pending revisions under the article's history page. The revisions cannot be accepted via the normal form, although a "Unaccept revision" button is available. I could edit and save the article with no changes to accept a new revision, but that feels kludgey. What's the correct way to address? -- ferret ( talk) 19:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I accepted this revision because it didn't technically violate the reviewing guideline, but I included some pertinent comments that I couldn't then find in the edit history. What is the purpose of the comments (if they don't show up in the edit summary or history) and how/ where then can they be viewed? Roberticus talk 03:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The comment goes to the page's review log. The comment is meant to only be related to reviewing itself; where you'd like to leave a comment on article talk, you have to do so by hand. -- Gryllida ( talk) 07:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
An edit that I accepted is being scrutinized by another editor, and since I'm pretty new at reviewing I'd like to ask for advice. There is a detailed discussion on my talk page but the summary is that an article on a K-pop group is PC1 protected, a new editor adds birthdays of the group members to a table listing the members, and the edit is up for review. I see the edit, verify the dates by way of the group members' individual wikilinked bios which are properly sourced, and accept the edit. Another editor takes issue with the source not being provided inline and reverts, letting me know that I should not have accepted the edit. In my consideration, since the information added was verifiable by way of the linked bios, the edit was not a violation of WP:BLP and there was no reason to reject. I had noted this in my review summary but neither of us knows how to find it. Should I have rejected the edit? Ivanvector ( talk) 13:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm working on a 'soft block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. My draft is located here and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. This also involves a new usergroup, although this is not strictly necessary for it to work. Cenarium ( talk) 17:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
How does one become a reviewer? I wanted to edit an article, but it seems my changes might take a bit to get to if there is a backlog. Mr. C.C. Hey yo! I didn't do it! 00:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
The proposal is now available at Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, it has been thoroughly rewritten. I welcome all opinions, though it isn't yet the time for a definitive determination of consensus, so this is really about first impressions or suggesting modifications and clarifications. In light of previous PC discussions, consensus should preferably be assessed in an organized RFC, or it gets unwieldy, so I've made a draft for it, I also invite comments on it. Feel free to copy edit and such both of those. Cenarium ( talk) 22:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone got a good Image of Brakpan Skyline ?{{Reflist} Brakpan Skyline Image} Davinciji ( talk) 13:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Davinciji (
talk •
contribs)
13:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Its useful data Praveenkumarchrg ( talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
If an edit is otherwise neutral and has information not in the article but the writing quality (grammatical errors, etc.) stemming from non-native speaker are of such an extent that the article's overall quality suffers dramatically and would require rewriting by someone with specialist knowledge of the topic, should it be accepted or rejected? I didn't see anything about this in the archives. My sense of the rule is that there's nothing that does not say accept, except for the fact that the quality of the encyclopedia would suffer from acceptance (which is a sort of IAR reason for reject). Thanks! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The article which was created for Integra Global, the international private medical insurance provider was rejected for the second time on 12 November. I am writing to dispute this rejection as I believe that there are sufficient sources as evidence of the subject's notability.
I can see that other private insurers have been approved to enter the Wikipedia open space, Now Health International, Bupa & Cigna to name a few. I also think that the basis of disapproval of my article is unfair because although there are less sources listed than the aforementioned insurance groups, Integra Global should not be penalised because it is a younger and smaller company. The third party sources that have been included do however prove that Integra Global is a notable company and one that should be given the right to be included in your encyclopedia.
I ask you to reconsider your decision and allow this article to be published. Expat Audience ( talk) 10:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
When a user makes and edit and then reverts it again, the changes still appear on Special:PendingChanges for review. Is it technically possible to avoid this (as it seems unnecessary – no net change was made to the article), or is there a reason to still have them reviewed? Gap9551 ( talk) 23:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I am a reviewer, and I know what to do when I find there is one edit awaiting review. But what am I meant to do if there are several? I have tried handling the oldest one first, and handling the newest one first; neither produces the results I would expect. Handling them all at once seems impracticable, as I may want to accept some and revert others. I am surprised that the page gives no guidance on this. Maproom ( talk) 12:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Under what circumstances might it be considered appropriate and useful for someone to leave comments for a reviewer, and how should that be done?
Might this article benefit from a brief section with a title something like "How to leave comments for a reviewer"?
I ask, because on 2020-04-02 I added a section on " Violations of the NPT" to the article on " Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". On 2020-04-04 I saw an edit by User:14.201.99.159 that cited an article by Noam Chomsky that included what I felt was poorly worded and misrepresented what Chomsky had said. That inspired me to substantially revise that section, citing that Chomsky article. When I posted that revision, I was surprised to see the message, "The latest accepted version was reviewed on 2020-04-02. There are 7 pending revisions awaiting review." Those 7 include 5 by User:14.201.99.159 followed by two by me. I thought about leaving a comment for the reviewer but decided against it, not knowing what to say. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 04:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Recently a change was added without consensus
here which added Please note that when reviewing
days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per
WP:DOYCITE.
I feel this goes against
General criteria and
Acceptable edits and as such removed it. It does not fit any of the exsisting General criteria and is directly opposed to the Acceptable edits part that states It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand.
PackMecEng (
talk)
02:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.So changing the whole scope of what pending change is to something that contradicts it is obviously unacceptable. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting, but of course you are free to uphold them as you would normally with any edit you happen to notice. For example, in case of additions for which you can find no reference in the article but estimate unlikely to be vandalism, treat them as you would treat any such edit: do nothing, tag as needing citation, provide an appropriate citation, or revert – depending on the situation at hand. Which is why you will notice at WP:PC and WP:PCPP they do not use verifiability as a criteria. PackMecEng ( talk) 14:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
The process of reviewing is intended as a quick check to ensure edits don't contain vandalism, violations of the policy on living people, copyright violations, or other obviously inappropriate contentand
Acceptance of an edit by a reviewer is not an endorsement of the edit. It merely indicates that the edit has been checked for obvious problems as listed aboveor the essay WP:PCC which states
The main reason for the above limitations is the position that reviewers find themselves in. Those working through a reviewer backlog are often not subject matter experts. They are not in a position to review edits for validity. If they did engage in such behavior, they risk immersing themselves in content disputes in every article they touch. We want to encourage reviewers, not punish them for volunteering to review edits by immersing them into disputes. By sticking to the clear cases, we avoid this negative effect.It also goes against what is acceptable for placing an article under pending change as it does not fit any of the criteria. PackMecEng ( talk) 16:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion for a formal RFC at VPP, please feel free to adjust wording as needed: Schazjmd (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE.?
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.WP:DOYCITE and WP:DOYSTYLE were updated to include that language.In July 2019, the language
Please note that when reviewing days of the year pages, all new additions require a direct citation per WP:DOYCITE.was added to WP:RPC. There has been an objection to the addition of this language on the grounds that it contradicts WP:RPC, specifically
It is not necessary for you to ensure compliance with the content policies on neutral point of view, verifiability and original research before accepting.
Hello friends. I've got a couple hundred PC reviews under my belt, and I'm starting to see all the common scenarios pretty clearly now.
I'd like to suggest that we add an "Optional criteria" section to the guideline, where we can uncontroversially put "suggestions" for common scenarios, without needing to modify the General criteria (aka the minimum criteria/strict criteria). Here's a link to my draft. Wikipedia:Tips for pending changes reviewers. Transcluded below:
This page is an optional, non-binding list of tips, suggestions, and criteria for pending changes reviewers to apply while doing pending changes patrol. This is in addition to the required criteria laid out at Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes § General criteria. Accept or revert?The question to think of when reviewing an edit is If this page was not pending-changes protected, do you think it would be reverted? If the answer is yes, then revert the edit. If the answer is no, then accept it. Also keep in mind these particular exceptions to the rule:
User talk pages
Other tips
Most active reviewersLog in, click "Fork", then click "Submit query" to get updated results.
|
These are "de facto" practices that are not clearly stated to brand new reviewers, but that I have discovered while doing reviewing. Therefore I feel it would be good to document these. Thoughts? Thanks. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 23:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I was trying to accept an edit today but did not have the buttons to do so, even though I'm an admin. After I added myself to the reviewer group, I have privileges. Is this an intended change or a bug in the code? — C.Fred ( talk) 19:05, 16 February 2021 (UTC)