First off, big thanks to FT2 for getting the ball rolling here! This is a lot of great content to work with! -- RobLa ( talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
FT2, I came away with a better first impression of this older version of the Help page than I did the latest version as of this writing. I think the earlier version covered the topic at about the right level of detail, whereas the latest version may be getting into the weeds. All of the information here needs to go somewhere, it's just probably time to create detail articles. I'll take a stab at that now. -- RobLa ( talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
About the section "...but changes will be visible only to other editors until checked for obvious vandalism and clear errors. The public (99.5% of whom are not editors)..." [emphasis mine]
Firstly, is this technically correct? I mean, there must be users who would consider themselves "editors" but never register - will they see the changes? Unfortunately I'm pretty sure the answer is "no"; secondly, it's not very inclusive-feeling. We want everyone to edit. Maybe "registered users"? Something like that?
Of course, the only reason I'm able to pick up on such trivial points is because it all makes sense to me; at last, a good help page about what we are now calling "pending changes"; so sorry to nitpick :) - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 13:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The article length is creeping upward again (in part due to the change I just made, but that's not the sole culprit). It seems like the 7k versions have about the right level of detail, with 9k being a lot more information than what is probably needed. The subpages, FAQ, etc, can be much longer, but this page should really be short and sweet.
I'm going to take a crack at trimming this back again. -- RobLa ( talk) 01:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The page contradicts itself
So, when an editor (not reviewer) opens an article, does he see the reviewed or the current article? The "reviewed" option leads to many more questions... East of Borschov ( talk) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I came here because of the draft announcement in The Signpost. I started a major copy-edit of this help page, but stopped (and instead saved it in a Word document) when I became thoroughly confused. I fear this will generate negative reactions unless fixed.
My head span concerning the following distinctions, which seem unclear and to cross over each other:
I have a suspicion that there are just two categories: those who are logged in and have not set their prefs to "Always show the latest version", and everyone else. Is this the case?
I saw at least two major repetitions of statements: this clagged up any understanding I was moving towards. The headings are confusing. Some information could be relocated to be more logical. I think the place for justifying the new system is in the lead; it doesn't need to be harped on in the sections
If someone can explain in as few words as possible what the differences in experience will be for the categories I've bulleted above, I could assist with the editing. Possibly, some of those categories could be conflated—if so, that would be soooo much easier for us to understand. Tony (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is what I think it means, but I'm too nervous to post it yet. I've slashed it down to the bare essentials, removing repetition and anything that seemed unnecessary for dummies like me to understand it. I've copy-edited all but this middle section, pending assistance here:
________________
===What it means for all users===
When you select "edit this page" on a page with "pending changes", you will be able to edit the latest pending revision, which may be slightly different from the page you were viewing. When you save your changes, your new version will become the latest pending revision.
=== If you are not logged in ===
Above the displayed article, you will see by default a "Read" tab (the "latest accepted version"). By definition, you are not autoconfirmed, and therefore must have all of your edits reviewed by a reviewer before the public can see them
If you always want to see the very latest (possibly unchecked) version of all articles, please log in and create an account (it's quick and free, and you don't even have to give an email address). You can then set your preference to always show the very latest version.
=== If you are logged in ===
If you leave your preferences at the default "Read vs pending changes" tab. The article will be displayed as for non-logged-in readers; i.e., you will see only the most recent accepted change, but can click on the "Pending revision" tab to see the changes that are awaiting review. This is generally the most helpful preference for the trial, since the more Wikipedians who can see the pending changes and provide feedback to the trial, the better.
If you change your preference to "Always show latest accepted version". You will see the latest revision by default, whether or not it has been reviewed and accepted.
_____________
Is it mangled? Can people add/change what is above if necessary, please? Also, in the "How does the "pending changes" review process work?" section, I don't quite understand this sentence at the bottom: "All edits will be visible immediately to users who have logged in, and the latest pending revision is what is loaded when any user selects the "Edit" tab." I also don't understand whether this statement will apply to all readers in all categories, or logged-on non-reviewers, or only reviewers: "iewing such an article, you'll see an extra tab: [SCREENSHOT OF RELEVANT TABS]. This means that some of the very latest edits are not shown because they are not yet checked for vandalism. The latest changes can be viewed by clicking the "pending changes" tab. Usually the displayed article will be very similar - the latest changes may be quite minor matters such as punctuation." Tony (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Other than my relatively minor misgivings about content length (see above), this page is in fair shape. However, Wikipedia:Pending changes is in a lot rougher shape, and there's not any linkage yet between Help:Pending changes and Wikipedia:Pending changes. I'm assuming that the right split would be that the Help page should talk about how the feature works at a more mechanical level, and the Wikipedia: page should talk about the policy, etc. Or, another way to deal with it is to just have one redirect to the other and call it good. Thoughts? -- RobLa ( talk) 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Something that is not clear to me is how the revision process will work if subsequent pending changes conflict with eachother. An example:
Questions/observations:
69.142.154.10 ( talk) 09:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I know at least that I !voted to approve the trial limited to BLP, as did many others. I do not think it would have been approved otherwise, especially since the key rationale for using this at all was the effect of vandalism on BLPs. I see the details presented here as an attempt to change the final wording to something that was rejected by the community. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
" If the user editing the article is a member of the "reviewer" group ( Become a reviewer!), then the new revision is immediately visible to everyone who visits that page."
You may wish to refer to the new category Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject.— Wavelength ( talk) 21:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to "unaccept" the only current pending change, to Raphael, & it has shown as "unaccepted", but is still showing in the article. Johnbod ( talk) 11:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved the following from the page; it's probably more useful as a discussion point for the feature than information about the feature.
This is in no way any disrespect to the idea, just that it might be more useful here instead, as the author's edit summary itself suggests. Also keeps the main page shorter. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Pending changes is an evolving concept which will improve through the feedback of users and data collected throughout the trial. The system is designed to maximize the openness of Wikipedia while minimizing the effect of unconstructive edits.
69.142.154.10 ( talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
PC Protection. What an unfortunate (but appropriate) name. Protecting Political Correctness. -- Britcom 18:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
This defacement of a featured article needs to be sorted. The editor who originally added TS to the pending articles already added a template at the top; now the article is being defaced with this template. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I actually see this as an opportunity to consider other ways of informing potential editors of the trial, and the fact that their edits will be subject to review. For example, the edit notice currently in use is minuscule and easy to ignore. Why isn't it a bright, eye-catching colour like the edit notices on a semi-protected page? Risker ( talk) 02:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have the same discussion going in several places, we should probably centralise it. I have just removed the message box from {{ pp-pending}} following a discussion on Template talk:pp-pending which suggested there was not consensus for the message. (I have retained the categorisation which the template was performing and these may be useful.) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been able to keep up, but it looks like this is sorted now. Could someone who understands check whether this is the correct solution? Why is move-indef taken off? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way to get statistics on how quickly pending changes are accepted/reverted? My impression from the last few days is that pending changes never remain unreviewed for more than a minute or two. If this is the case, it implies that it will be possible to substantially increase the number of articles with pending changes. -- Zvika ( talk) 08:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{helme-nq}} This page is linked prominently from flagged articles (I came form Sarah Palin, and WP users (of whom editors make up a very small percentage) need to be clearly and quickly informed as to what it all means. Instead there's a big orange box aimed at editors, full of backroom technicalities and jargon, which makes this help page totally inaccessible for the casual reader. Please optimise the page for readers instead of editors; one way of doing this would be to {{ hide}} the advice for editors. Thanks 86.41.79.133 ( talk) 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not applied to be a reviewer but intend to continue to monitor my particular watchlist for vandalism and other issues. One of those articles is Abraham Lincoln and this [1] represents the article history.
When I revert vandalism by an IP, does that still mean that a reviewer will still need to address that IP's edit? In the history linked above, there have been 10 recent reverts of IP or new user vandalism -- do these reverts eliminate the need for a reviewer to become involved? If a reviewer DOES eliminate a case of IP vandalism, how does it look on the article history -- does it disappear completely or does it just continue to show in the way that any reverted edit continue to show? Is there anyway to determine whether a revert is done by a reviewer or simply a regular editor?
The bottom line -- does it serve any purpose for me to eliminate vandalism on articles subject to the new review policy? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 22:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. This new procedure came in while I was away from Wikipedia, and I can't seem to find the details of how to implement WP:PEND on a specific page. I've tried to give the page Stokes Valley PEND-protection, but I'm sure I've done something wrong. Can someone who knows more about the procedure please check whether I've done it OK ? I followed the info at Help:Pending_changes#Advice_for_admins, but I'm not convinced I succeeded! (BTW, FWIW, the page has had ongoing low-level vandalism from anons for about a year. Not enough to need full protection, but enough to need something done with it). Cheers, Grutness... wha? 09:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
For this edit, should I have accepted the edit and then fix the mistake, or just fix the mistake? I thought I should accept the edit because it wasn't vandalism then fix the mistake, but then I thought if I would do that, then all the readers would see is just a broken reference for a few seconds before I would fix it. I ended up doing nothing and someone else accepted it, but would it have been ok to neglect accepting it and making the fix? エムエックスさん 話 20:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The article refers to a "two month trial" in the lead paragraph, but doesn't give any dates, so I don't know how far through the trial we are. If someone who knows could add that information, that would be great - thanks! ciphergoth ( talk) 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at one article currently reviewed - Gilad Atzmon - One thing I see is that in cases of clear vandalism, the entry itself is deleted. Is this true when edits are not allowed because they are, say, not referenced or WP:OR using an existing reference, or whatever? If so, that would remove evidence of patterns of vandalism or disruptiveness by editors who may need sanctions. Is that explained in the sentence "Unaccepted edits are never "lost" for lack of being "accepted". They are simply no longer candidates for wider public display as the current accepted version." If so, I don't understand the explanation. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't find the "accept button" anywhere. Is it because I am not an admin and only admins get to see it? If so, this Help page should be made clearer.-- greenrd ( talk) 08:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the current status of the trial? Should PC be removed from pages currently on trial and protection implemented as needed? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I edited the Condoleezza Rice page, and my edit was put up as "pending review" although recent edits of mine on this page had been accepted automatically. What I did was re-instate some uncontroversial information that had been removed because it wasn't sourced, and added some sourcing. I did this by editing the second last version of the page (i.e. editing an "old" version), rather than undoing and then adding. Is that what triggered the review? VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 08:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I just ran into the 'pending changes' thing for the first time. I'm a long-time editor, generally only making minor and cosmetic changes. I don't usually bother to log in, because I think anonymous editing is one of the things that makes Wikipedia as great as it is. I hope this trial ends and doesn't come back; if it ends up being widely adopted I, and who knows how many more people, will probably no longer contribute, and I don't know what that would do to the project. 201.236.144.28 ( talk) 00:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Im agree, please delete this stupid new rule of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.237.33 ( talk) 22:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It is a huge disincentive to edit. In my experience, the admins cannot be trusted to act appropriately, and I don't want them sitting in judgement over me every time I make a minor edit. I'm quitting. Alex Middleton ( talk) 16:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how to accept pending review changes? Just made a valid change (with source) to Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, but was not logged in. How do I approve the change? The instructions really aren't clear, and there's no 'accept pending changes' button anywhere. doktorb words deeds 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I was just looking at a piece of obvious vandalism that lasted for 30 minutes on a page I watch before being reverted, and found myself wishing that the page was under Pending Changes protection. What happened after the Pending Changes trial? From the review log it looks like reviewing is still happening, even though the trial has "ended". Where can I request for a page to be added? Ryan Paddy ( talk) 00:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
First off, big thanks to FT2 for getting the ball rolling here! This is a lot of great content to work with! -- RobLa ( talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
FT2, I came away with a better first impression of this older version of the Help page than I did the latest version as of this writing. I think the earlier version covered the topic at about the right level of detail, whereas the latest version may be getting into the weeds. All of the information here needs to go somewhere, it's just probably time to create detail articles. I'll take a stab at that now. -- RobLa ( talk) 03:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
About the section "...but changes will be visible only to other editors until checked for obvious vandalism and clear errors. The public (99.5% of whom are not editors)..." [emphasis mine]
Firstly, is this technically correct? I mean, there must be users who would consider themselves "editors" but never register - will they see the changes? Unfortunately I'm pretty sure the answer is "no"; secondly, it's not very inclusive-feeling. We want everyone to edit. Maybe "registered users"? Something like that?
Of course, the only reason I'm able to pick up on such trivial points is because it all makes sense to me; at last, a good help page about what we are now calling "pending changes"; so sorry to nitpick :) - Jarry1250 Humorous? Discuss. 13:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The article length is creeping upward again (in part due to the change I just made, but that's not the sole culprit). It seems like the 7k versions have about the right level of detail, with 9k being a lot more information than what is probably needed. The subpages, FAQ, etc, can be much longer, but this page should really be short and sweet.
I'm going to take a crack at trimming this back again. -- RobLa ( talk) 01:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The page contradicts itself
So, when an editor (not reviewer) opens an article, does he see the reviewed or the current article? The "reviewed" option leads to many more questions... East of Borschov ( talk) 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I came here because of the draft announcement in The Signpost. I started a major copy-edit of this help page, but stopped (and instead saved it in a Word document) when I became thoroughly confused. I fear this will generate negative reactions unless fixed.
My head span concerning the following distinctions, which seem unclear and to cross over each other:
I have a suspicion that there are just two categories: those who are logged in and have not set their prefs to "Always show the latest version", and everyone else. Is this the case?
I saw at least two major repetitions of statements: this clagged up any understanding I was moving towards. The headings are confusing. Some information could be relocated to be more logical. I think the place for justifying the new system is in the lead; it doesn't need to be harped on in the sections
If someone can explain in as few words as possible what the differences in experience will be for the categories I've bulleted above, I could assist with the editing. Possibly, some of those categories could be conflated—if so, that would be soooo much easier for us to understand. Tony (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is what I think it means, but I'm too nervous to post it yet. I've slashed it down to the bare essentials, removing repetition and anything that seemed unnecessary for dummies like me to understand it. I've copy-edited all but this middle section, pending assistance here:
________________
===What it means for all users===
When you select "edit this page" on a page with "pending changes", you will be able to edit the latest pending revision, which may be slightly different from the page you were viewing. When you save your changes, your new version will become the latest pending revision.
=== If you are not logged in ===
Above the displayed article, you will see by default a "Read" tab (the "latest accepted version"). By definition, you are not autoconfirmed, and therefore must have all of your edits reviewed by a reviewer before the public can see them
If you always want to see the very latest (possibly unchecked) version of all articles, please log in and create an account (it's quick and free, and you don't even have to give an email address). You can then set your preference to always show the very latest version.
=== If you are logged in ===
If you leave your preferences at the default "Read vs pending changes" tab. The article will be displayed as for non-logged-in readers; i.e., you will see only the most recent accepted change, but can click on the "Pending revision" tab to see the changes that are awaiting review. This is generally the most helpful preference for the trial, since the more Wikipedians who can see the pending changes and provide feedback to the trial, the better.
If you change your preference to "Always show latest accepted version". You will see the latest revision by default, whether or not it has been reviewed and accepted.
_____________
Is it mangled? Can people add/change what is above if necessary, please? Also, in the "How does the "pending changes" review process work?" section, I don't quite understand this sentence at the bottom: "All edits will be visible immediately to users who have logged in, and the latest pending revision is what is loaded when any user selects the "Edit" tab." I also don't understand whether this statement will apply to all readers in all categories, or logged-on non-reviewers, or only reviewers: "iewing such an article, you'll see an extra tab: [SCREENSHOT OF RELEVANT TABS]. This means that some of the very latest edits are not shown because they are not yet checked for vandalism. The latest changes can be viewed by clicking the "pending changes" tab. Usually the displayed article will be very similar - the latest changes may be quite minor matters such as punctuation." Tony (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Other than my relatively minor misgivings about content length (see above), this page is in fair shape. However, Wikipedia:Pending changes is in a lot rougher shape, and there's not any linkage yet between Help:Pending changes and Wikipedia:Pending changes. I'm assuming that the right split would be that the Help page should talk about how the feature works at a more mechanical level, and the Wikipedia: page should talk about the policy, etc. Or, another way to deal with it is to just have one redirect to the other and call it good. Thoughts? -- RobLa ( talk) 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Something that is not clear to me is how the revision process will work if subsequent pending changes conflict with eachother. An example:
Questions/observations:
69.142.154.10 ( talk) 09:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I know at least that I !voted to approve the trial limited to BLP, as did many others. I do not think it would have been approved otherwise, especially since the key rationale for using this at all was the effect of vandalism on BLPs. I see the details presented here as an attempt to change the final wording to something that was rejected by the community. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
" If the user editing the article is a member of the "reviewer" group ( Become a reviewer!), then the new revision is immediately visible to everyone who visits that page."
You may wish to refer to the new category Category:Lists of popular pages by WikiProject.— Wavelength ( talk) 21:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I am trying to "unaccept" the only current pending change, to Raphael, & it has shown as "unaccepted", but is still showing in the article. Johnbod ( talk) 11:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved the following from the page; it's probably more useful as a discussion point for the feature than information about the feature.
This is in no way any disrespect to the idea, just that it might be more useful here instead, as the author's edit summary itself suggests. Also keeps the main page shorter. FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Pending changes is an evolving concept which will improve through the feedback of users and data collected throughout the trial. The system is designed to maximize the openness of Wikipedia while minimizing the effect of unconstructive edits.
69.142.154.10 ( talk) 19:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
PC Protection. What an unfortunate (but appropriate) name. Protecting Political Correctness. -- Britcom 18:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
This defacement of a featured article needs to be sorted. The editor who originally added TS to the pending articles already added a template at the top; now the article is being defaced with this template. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I actually see this as an opportunity to consider other ways of informing potential editors of the trial, and the fact that their edits will be subject to review. For example, the edit notice currently in use is minuscule and easy to ignore. Why isn't it a bright, eye-catching colour like the edit notices on a semi-protected page? Risker ( talk) 02:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
We seem to have the same discussion going in several places, we should probably centralise it. I have just removed the message box from {{ pp-pending}} following a discussion on Template talk:pp-pending which suggested there was not consensus for the message. (I have retained the categorisation which the template was performing and these may be useful.) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't been able to keep up, but it looks like this is sorted now. Could someone who understands check whether this is the correct solution? Why is move-indef taken off? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Is there any way to get statistics on how quickly pending changes are accepted/reverted? My impression from the last few days is that pending changes never remain unreviewed for more than a minute or two. If this is the case, it implies that it will be possible to substantially increase the number of articles with pending changes. -- Zvika ( talk) 08:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
{{helme-nq}} This page is linked prominently from flagged articles (I came form Sarah Palin, and WP users (of whom editors make up a very small percentage) need to be clearly and quickly informed as to what it all means. Instead there's a big orange box aimed at editors, full of backroom technicalities and jargon, which makes this help page totally inaccessible for the casual reader. Please optimise the page for readers instead of editors; one way of doing this would be to {{ hide}} the advice for editors. Thanks 86.41.79.133 ( talk) 17:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I have not applied to be a reviewer but intend to continue to monitor my particular watchlist for vandalism and other issues. One of those articles is Abraham Lincoln and this [1] represents the article history.
When I revert vandalism by an IP, does that still mean that a reviewer will still need to address that IP's edit? In the history linked above, there have been 10 recent reverts of IP or new user vandalism -- do these reverts eliminate the need for a reviewer to become involved? If a reviewer DOES eliminate a case of IP vandalism, how does it look on the article history -- does it disappear completely or does it just continue to show in the way that any reverted edit continue to show? Is there anyway to determine whether a revert is done by a reviewer or simply a regular editor?
The bottom line -- does it serve any purpose for me to eliminate vandalism on articles subject to the new review policy? Tom (North Shoreman) ( talk) 22:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi all. This new procedure came in while I was away from Wikipedia, and I can't seem to find the details of how to implement WP:PEND on a specific page. I've tried to give the page Stokes Valley PEND-protection, but I'm sure I've done something wrong. Can someone who knows more about the procedure please check whether I've done it OK ? I followed the info at Help:Pending_changes#Advice_for_admins, but I'm not convinced I succeeded! (BTW, FWIW, the page has had ongoing low-level vandalism from anons for about a year. Not enough to need full protection, but enough to need something done with it). Cheers, Grutness... wha? 09:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
For this edit, should I have accepted the edit and then fix the mistake, or just fix the mistake? I thought I should accept the edit because it wasn't vandalism then fix the mistake, but then I thought if I would do that, then all the readers would see is just a broken reference for a few seconds before I would fix it. I ended up doing nothing and someone else accepted it, but would it have been ok to neglect accepting it and making the fix? エムエックスさん 話 20:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The article refers to a "two month trial" in the lead paragraph, but doesn't give any dates, so I don't know how far through the trial we are. If someone who knows could add that information, that would be great - thanks! ciphergoth ( talk) 06:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Looking at one article currently reviewed - Gilad Atzmon - One thing I see is that in cases of clear vandalism, the entry itself is deleted. Is this true when edits are not allowed because they are, say, not referenced or WP:OR using an existing reference, or whatever? If so, that would remove evidence of patterns of vandalism or disruptiveness by editors who may need sanctions. Is that explained in the sentence "Unaccepted edits are never "lost" for lack of being "accepted". They are simply no longer candidates for wider public display as the current accepted version." If so, I don't understand the explanation. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't find the "accept button" anywhere. Is it because I am not an admin and only admins get to see it? If so, this Help page should be made clearer.-- greenrd ( talk) 08:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the current status of the trial? Should PC be removed from pages currently on trial and protection implemented as needed? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 19:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
I edited the Condoleezza Rice page, and my edit was put up as "pending review" although recent edits of mine on this page had been accepted automatically. What I did was re-instate some uncontroversial information that had been removed because it wasn't sourced, and added some sourcing. I did this by editing the second last version of the page (i.e. editing an "old" version), rather than undoing and then adding. Is that what triggered the review? VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 08:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I just ran into the 'pending changes' thing for the first time. I'm a long-time editor, generally only making minor and cosmetic changes. I don't usually bother to log in, because I think anonymous editing is one of the things that makes Wikipedia as great as it is. I hope this trial ends and doesn't come back; if it ends up being widely adopted I, and who knows how many more people, will probably no longer contribute, and I don't know what that would do to the project. 201.236.144.28 ( talk) 00:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Im agree, please delete this stupid new rule of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.27.237.33 ( talk) 22:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. It is a huge disincentive to edit. In my experience, the admins cannot be trusted to act appropriately, and I don't want them sitting in judgement over me every time I make a minor edit. I'm quitting. Alex Middleton ( talk) 16:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how to accept pending review changes? Just made a valid change (with source) to Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, but was not logged in. How do I approve the change? The instructions really aren't clear, and there's no 'accept pending changes' button anywhere. doktorb words deeds 16:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I was just looking at a piece of obvious vandalism that lasted for 30 minutes on a page I watch before being reverted, and found myself wishing that the page was under Pending Changes protection. What happened after the Pending Changes trial? From the review log it looks like reviewing is still happening, even though the trial has "ended". Where can I request for a page to be added? Ryan Paddy ( talk) 00:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)