Wikipedia talk:Editor review
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 Archives |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents |
[edit] Userbox
I've just created a userbox {{User Editor review}}. Now it's only referring to the first review, and by adding parameters it should be possible to add the second, third review etc. and the colors and grapics could probably be far better. Is this an idea to work futher on? I've used it on my page. Nsaa (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- It looks good, but is this suppose to be a replacement for our banner?--₮RUCӨ 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- More as an user box pointing to an already done review, so a link is maintained at the user page after the banners asking for input has been removed. Added it as an 9 point to the list on what to do. Nsaa (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ohh. I think one way to improve it would be to add optional parameters in order for users to add multiple reviews. This should be optional since not every users nominates more than one nomination.--₮RUCӨ 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Tried to add parameters. It works for the two first at least. Nsaa (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now it should work for up to nine optional parameters (reviews), see Template:User_Editor_review. Nsaa (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ohh. I think one way to improve it would be to add optional parameters in order for users to add multiple reviews. This should be optional since not every users nominates more than one nomination.--₮RUCӨ 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- More as an user box pointing to an already done review, so a link is maintained at the user page after the banners asking for input has been removed. Added it as an 9 point to the list on what to do. Nsaa (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Request for help please
Hi, what are the "rules" regarding the review's subject removing negative comments? Could some people knowledgeable about this process look at the history onwards from this diff please. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- In an instance like this when the comment was added in bad faith by a sock created to harass inclusionists and as such adds nothing constructive to the discussion, it is okay to remove it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- (ec)There aren't directly any straight-forward rules about it (from what I read). If the negative comments are from a sock (like its mentioned) and if its pure nonsense (and in bad-faith) and not a legit review, the comments IMO should be removed. But if they are true negative comments, then they should remain.--₮RUCӨ 23:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- If either of you would like further information on the circumstances involved here, please send me an email as I will gladly clarify things further, but the circumstances concerning that account and its long term history of incivility and personal attacks towards inclusionists are such that it should not be humored in this instance. Editors are more than welcome to offer their honest thoughts and as such you will see that some who have said negative things will absolutely not be reverted by me, even the IP that didn't like getting a welcome message, but this particular account in question has such an eggregious edit history toward myself and others that its comments cannot be regarded by anyone familiar with that history as good faith and legitimate. Again, if more evidence needs to be provided, I will gladly provide it. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- (ec)There aren't directly any straight-forward rules about it (from what I read). If the negative comments are from a sock (like its mentioned) and if its pure nonsense (and in bad-faith) and not a legit review, the comments IMO should be removed. But if they are true negative comments, then they should remain.--₮RUCӨ 23:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- (edit conflict) The comment was unhelpful and inflammatory. However, it was not vandalism, it did not name any previous accounts, and this is not user space, so according to WP:CIVIL it should not have been removed. Practically speaking, since these two seem to be old friends, I think we should leave the review page as it is, and interpret the revert as "message received". Wronkiew (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Backlog
I just checked the current review requests and all of them are done; given this, surprisely, there is still a backlog: "Click here for the backlog of unreviewed requests."
Anyone care to do them?WhatisFeelings? (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I looked at the requests in the backlog, and it seems like most of the requesting users have not been reviewed. Not sure if these users are still looking for a review, and they could simply start another review request. -download | sign! 02:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Archive bot proposal
I'm interested in adding a new task for DustyBot (talk · contribs) to maintain the ER page and its archives. It will take over closing reviews, listing reviews in the archives, and notifying users that their reviews are about to be closed. Reviews will be closed when these conditions are met:
- Open for 30 days
- Not edited in 7 days
- Marked as reviewed
DustyBot will notify editors of impending closures. It will not close a review until at least 3 days after the notification. The minimum review time (default 30 days) and the inactivity time (7 days) will be configurable by anyone. This task will run once per day. Please let me know if you have any concerns or suggestions for improvements. Wronkiew (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Computerjoe's talk 11:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Request filed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DustyBot 5. Wronkiew (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Questions when submitting a review request
There are 2 questions an editor is requested to ask. The first one says: "Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?" It doesn't ask what you are particularly pleased with. For example, "Are there any (edits/articles/contributions) about which you are particularly pleased? Why?" One of the three bolded items may possibly be added. Any comments?--Rockfang (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like someone fixed it. Computerjoe's talk 11:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
It still says
Answer the following questions under "q1" and "q2":
q1: Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?
Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Still not fixed as of today, causing me to incompletely answer question #1. Dan D. Ric (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Eh?
I have just added my request for editor review but the first pargraph doesn't show on the page.
This is what shows up in the editing screen:
===[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Gaia Octavia Agrippa|Gaia Octavia Agrippa]]<!--REMOVE THIS ASTERISK WHEN YOU REVIEW.-->*=== {{user|Gaia Octavia Agrippa}} I have been editing wikipedia since September 2007. I have been considering applying for admin coaching and then applying for adminship. However I would like to get some feedback on my strong/weak points and on things I need to improve or get involved with if I am to be a successful admin candidate. [[User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa|<font color="#7A60F8">Gaia Octavia Agrippa</font>]]<sup> [[User talk:Gaia Octavia Agrippa|<font color="#C560F8">Talk</font>]]</sup> | <sub> [[User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa/Guestbook|<font color="#6093F8">Sign</font>]]</sub> 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
And this is what shows up on the Editor Review page:
Gaia Octavia Agrippa*
Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · contribs) Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 11:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Whats gone wrong? Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 12:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- It shows up perfectly on my screen both on the main page and your review page. Try bypassing your cache, refresh your browser, or purge the main screen or your editor review page.--Truco 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Administrator review
I've noticed admins posting editor reviews specifically seeking input on their administrative actions, so I've revived an old page and set it to work for this process. Comments invited. –xeno talk 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Merge the two processes. Admins are just editors with a few more user rights. Computerjoe's talk 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Withdraw editor review
Hey guys, I would like to withdraw my request for an editor review (Wikipedia:Editor review/DoxTxob). There were no responses in several weeks and I am not sure if I can archive it myself or if it can be just deleted. There is quite some backlog anyway and I am no longer interested in opinions regarding the review. Please delete, archive or let me know the steps to take. Thank you! doxTxob \ talk 22:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- There were no comments because it was never transcluded to the main WP:ER page. If you don't want it listed, just leave it the way it is or you can request to have it deleted. Your choice. MBisanz talk 03:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Shortcut
I added another shortcut to the main Editor Review page, as WP:ERV. The problem is, I can't seem to figure out the template syntax to get the new shortcut to show up in the box on the right side of the page. Can someone help out with this? Thanks. Quantumobserver (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done. The template itself had to be modified. Computerjoe's talk 09:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Change Editor Review Template
How do I change it on my userpage to go to this one, when it is automatically linking here?. Thanks, SilverserenC 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
