User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

In late 2009 I started appointing Wikipedia:Autoreviewers and Wikipedia:Rollbackers. This is where I archive threads that are mainly about that.

Jared Preston

Thank you very much! It's lovely to have a little respect on Wikipedia. I love creating articles and making minor edits to articles which are of interest. I hope you have a brilliant weekend! Take care and best greetings. Jared Preston (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome, and I wish you a good weekend also. ϢereSpielChequers 15:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Autoreview, how many articles has this person created...

If you look at a persons contribs and go to the bottom of the page where things like samspade and whois are, there is a link for "edit count". When you click that you get the edit count but at the right hand side is a list of tools including "Articles created" and you can include/exclude or show only redirects. It might take several minutes to count them for instance I was going to leave a link to the results of yours for example but it timed out completely. That said, I have used it four or five times before and it takes a minute but usually works. I think it is heavily trafficked now or something. This one worked fine ... [1] I guess if it times out and they have 50 million edits you have to give them credit. ~ R.T.G 21:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Slightly quicker is to have the Soxred link on your favourites list and just open it on a separate screen when you want to check out a good prospect. But if you are responding to my Bot suggestion, I suspect there are dozens if not hundreds of editors out there who a bot could identify as good candidates for autoreviewer. As well as hundreds who would be ruled out because they don't create many articles or have been recently blocked. A bot to identify a prospect list would be a lot more efficient than me checking out article writers who I come across at newpages. ϢereSpielChequers 22:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I had that niggling feeling that this editor should know this information. Obviously from the post here you can see I read it quickly, please ignore. But note there is a bot request area you are likely to get help with that unless it became inactive very recently Wikipedia:Bot requests, GLuck ~ R.T.G 22:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if there is consensus at Wikipedia talk:Autoreviewer that this would be useful I will go there. But I think it worth chewing such ideas over on a relevant talkpage first - there's usually some improvement someone suggests that is worth incorporating before you start talking to coders. What do you think of the idea? ϢereSpielChequers 22:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the sort of thing those scripts are written for. Maybe if you can get hold of Soxred93 it would just be an extension of his/her tools but like I said there, users with many article creation seem to time out the app which may be important. Not really a patroller myself, *the shame*, so unlikely to suggest anything great but standard looking idea to me. You should canvas at (is it?) New Article Patrol? Or village pump. ~ R.T.G 23:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering...

...is there any possibility of my alternate account (ie. this one) being granted rollback? It's just, I may be editing from a semi-secure internet connection (i.e. McDonald's) some time in the next few days, and it's really weird not having rollback. I'm not sure of the official policy on this, so any help would be appreciated, Sock of Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to my Lord) 22:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that was me, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Greetings m'lord, one is always honoured (note non-silent h)) to ave a member of the haristocracy visit one's umble talkpage. Appy to oblige about the Rollback, but if I may first be so bold as to make one slight comment on your lordship's existing account? or I'll eat your liver! Is perfectly acceptable here and elsewhere in Wikispace, but might just be considered a little, errh, bitey? when dealing with newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about the latter. Funny coincidence, I actually changed it after I left that last comment. It's back to "I am Czar of all Russias" now. Thanks for your help, minion, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your sock now has Rollback. ϢereSpielChequers 11:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wait. Shouldn't I be the one saying thanks? How'd that happen? Never mind, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever read s:Catullus 84, WereSpielChequers? Tim Song (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I ave now. ϢereSpielChequers 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply south

Thank you for that. It was interesting to learn about that. Also could you delete User:Simply south/Gogar please? Simply south (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. At the least it reduces the workload at new page patrol, and it should reduce the risk of some overenthusiastic patroller tagging one of your articles for deletion. PS deleted that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Bms4880

Thanks for the autoreviewer recognition! I was unaware it existed unti you mentioned it. Bms4880 (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, I'm actively trying to find editors like you who are quietly beavering away adding good stuff to the pedia, and get as many of them classified as Autoreviewers as I can. I've been surprised to find quite a few out there. ϢereSpielChequers 17:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Teinesavaii

Thanks. Umm, but it actually feels better having others 'patrolling' and checking up on my edits, so I hope that doesn't stop them...I'm still learning.Teine Savaii (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well hopefully this won't reduce the useful collaboration you get, especially when you add an article that goes into a category or links to an article that some else is keeping an eye on. But it should exempt you from the New Page patrollers who are screening out vandalism and fancruft and can sometimes get a little trigger happy. ϢereSpielChequers 15:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Joe Chill

Thanks for autoreviewer. It's surprising that I didn't know about autoreview until know. Joe Chill (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think it's a very under publicised and fairly new system, which is one reason why I've been on the lookout for article writers like you who qualify. ϢereSpielChequers 18:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

MichaelQSchmidt

Might you consider granting my account Autoreviewer status per my edits and contributions? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, normally the guideline for Autoreviewer includes 75 articles created (ignoring redirects), which gives us a pretty good idea that articles you create don't need to be looked at by newpage patrollers. As you have done a lot of editing and seem to have a good grasp of wp:BLP concerns I think we would grant autoreviewer long before you contribute your 75th article, but 16 is probably a bit too early. I've only recently started appointing Autoreviewers and most of those I've looked at have contributed over a hundred articles, and I'm trying to stick to candidates who clearly meet the criteria. So if you are planning on writing more new articles I suggest you apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer when you've reached say 40 articles. ϢereSpielChequers 16:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Qui1che

Many thanks for the Autoreviewer status. --papageno (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, have a Happy New Year as well! ϢereSpellCheckers 11:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Autoreviewer Confidence

--Mike Cline (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for writing those articles. ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You!

You removed my Autoreviewer status. Thank you! JimCubb (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Starbois

Thanks for marking my account this way. I'd never heard of autoreviewer, and I've been editing WP since 2004 under this and a previous user name. -- Starbois (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Wikipedia:Autoreviewer has only existed for a few months, so there are quite a few oldtimers who haven't heard of it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Moonraker2

Hello, and thank you very much for 'autoreviewer'. Since your note on my page, I've read about wp:Rollback. I'd been wondering how it was done. Thanks, I'd be happy to try that tool. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

replied on your talk ϢereSpielChequers 19:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

DonCalo

Thanks for upgrading me, I did not even know such a category existed. - DonCalo (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. wp:autoreviewer is fairly new and not that well known. One of the things I most enjoy doing on the 'pedia is tracking down article creators like yourself who might not be aware of autoreviewer, but are writing lots of articles that meet wp:notability and wp:blp guidelines. ϢereSpielChequers 13:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pdcook

Greetings. I have been creating a couple of new articles per day (usually science biographies), and I anticipate I will continue doing so. Would you be willing to grant me autoreviewer rights? I have a list of the pages I've created on my user page. Regards, PDCook (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

With pleasure. I think you seem to have a good grasp of both wp:BLP and wp:notability ϢereSpielChequers 08:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thanks! PDCook (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

DavidCane

Thanks for granting autoreviewer status. I can't say I was aware of it.--DavidCane (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Autoreviewer is fairly new, and I've come to realise that a number of our very longserving writers aren't aware of it. ϢereSpielChequers

Imc

Thanks for this. I'm glad to see that it does not involve (or so it seems to me) any new responsibilities! Regards, Imc (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, no new responsibilities, just go on writing well referenced articles on notable subjects. ϢereSpielChequers 22:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Midway

Hey, thanks for that! Midway (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Blue520

Thank you for the offer, rollback would be useful. I have had a read of wp:rollback, I think I have a understanding of what it does (and can not do). It is only effective on the the latest edits and will roll back ALL edits by that user to the last version by another user. So if the user has made a number of edits but only one or two are lets say incorrect, then to use rollback would be ill advised and an other method like undo (or manual edit) should be employed. Any thing else to note? --blue520 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well mainly that it is only for reverting vandalism - or reverting your self of course. ϢereSpielChequers 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What I was trying to briefly and politely say was. A couple of times when dealing with new editors (a similar thing can pop up with IP editors) I have found that they start out doing a number edits in good faith (attempting to beneficial and most are correctly done) over a number of articles and something happens, for example one (or a couple) of their edits get reverted for what ever reason, get bored or something else. They go on a vandalism spree, going back over the pages they edited and vandalising the other continence of the page. Rollback is not the tool to use in that situation, while it may just be easiest to remove all the edits by the user no mater the edit (vandalism or not), it is not the correct thing to do. I do think rollback would be useful for me, how to I go about setting it up? --blue520 07:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--blue520 10:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Angmering

Hello, thanks for that. I don't generally take much notice of the mechanics of it all, so I can't say it's something I would have spotted! I don't, in all honesty, really create many articles, particularly these days, but I just happen to have done a few this week after being sparked off on something. Anyway, cheers! Angmering (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome - I'm doing a bit of a trawl for longstanding editors like you who have been overlooked for autoreviewer and I've been surprised at how many of you there are. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Katerenka

Hi. I don't really edit here anymore (I've moved on to other projects), so consequently, having an account with userrights here seems rather pointless. If you have a moment later, and feel like doing something admin-y, I'd appreciate their removal (just in case). Cheers, m:Katerenka (d) 16:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to ask for them back if you return. As for the other projects, have you tried the Strategy wiki? I was quite active there last Autumn and keep meaning to revisit. ϢereSpielChequers 16:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate it. :) I'd actually not heard of the Strategy wiki, but after looking at it, it seems like something that I would be interested in. Hopefully, I'll see you around there. :) Thanks, again. Yours, m:Katerenka (d) 16:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Mike Searson

Thanks for the help on S&W Model 41, what's an Autoreviewer?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mike, wp:Autoreviewer is a fairly new system, it's for editors who have shown they understand policies on wp:notability and especially wp:BLP. I figure that you should be in that group, as it is more likely that a new page patroller would incorrectly tag one of your articles for deletion than that you would start writing stuff that deserves deletion:) ϢereSpielChequers 22:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just found the wikipage (although I had to search yahoo to find it!), thanks! I appreciate the honor! I've only run into that once or twice, but never with anything I created...more like a stub that I improved. Thanks again!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt9148

I didn't even know that was a thing, haha, but thanks. I've been here for a long time, but I tend to stay in my little bubble and not know a lot about some of the larger stuff. matt91486 (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. One reason I'm keeping an eye out for new article writers like you at New Page patrol is that I realised there are a bunch of contributors like you out there who tend to be overlooked for this sort of thing. ϢereSpielChequers 11:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Antarctic-adventurer

Hi WereSpielChequers. Thanks for setting me as an autoreviewer. I have been editing for some time now but I'll make sure to continue creating new articles with care. Cheers. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you will. I'd noticed your articles several times, and thought that in your case it would be silly to wait until you'd done the recommended 75 articles before becoming an Autoreviewer. ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Believer

Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 12:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to grant rollback rights as well? I'd certainly be willing to help out with reverting vandalism even moreso than I do already. If not, no worries. Thanks again! --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to do that. But please have a read of wp:rollback and remember only to use rollback to revert blatant vandalism or your own mistakes. - If in doubt please stick to undo. ϢereSpielChequers 22:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely. Thank you so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bits and bananas

Thanks for the autoreviewer update. It would be good to find out more about that song as I have a feeling that the lyrics are making some specific references but I'm not too sure what they are. Close cover before striking seems to refer to books of matches but there must be more to it than that.

There's another similar status I gather - rollbacker. I'm not sure how useful it is but please could you add that too so that I can understand it and maybe use it where appropriate (just vandalism, I gather). Colonel Warden (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, but please read wp:rollback. Though just for reverting vandalism is a pretty good summary, but you are also OK to rollback your own edits as you are unlikely to feel insulted by yourself. ϢereSpielChequers 00:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that too. And so to bed... Colonel Warden (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Bonewah

Thanks for the Autoreviewer bit, I solemnly swear to only use my new found powers for good! Bonewah (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I'm sure you will. ϢereSpielChequers 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Rollback

Hi, yes, sorry about that, I do have it but on a different PC and my tools would not show up, plus a dodgy connection. Yes there was some outrageous Vandalism to Namdhari. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt

Thanks for the honour of autoreviewer! Good luck with Anna Larsson - plenty of info, would have a look myself but have two other topics first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Poulsen

Thank you for your trust :) I must admit I didn't know anything about Autoreviewer before, but if you trust me enough to have my articles automatically patrolled, it would hopefully save some time for patrollers (though there's of course always room for content improvements). Poulsen (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 18:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Imars

Gosh, I feel honored. Thank you! --imars (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for writing all those articles. ϢereSpielChequers 14:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Vielen dank

Thanks for your trust! (Autocheck privilege) You will not be disappointed!

cheers, Bruinfan12 (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I won't be. Thanks for your contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 13:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Markdask

Since you changed my status to Reviewer, I've read up on reviewer status and I'm flattered - particularly given I have fewer than 3k edits to my name. Be assured I will earn the trust - might even make admin some day - when I have the experience. Mark^Dask 16:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Markdask, a few years ago people were making admin with your level of experience. If we are both still active here when you've had 12 months experience then feel free to read User:WereSpielChequers/RFA criteria and drop me an email if you are thinking of adminship. ϢereSpielChequers 14:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man I'll do that Mark^Dask 10:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Redpower94

Oh, thank you for informing me! --Redpower94 (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer right

Thanks. I never bothered to ask for it since I only have one page on my watch list. If I come across a need, it will be good to have. Time to read up a bit on how the interface works. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I figured if you were going to take part in discussions about it it might help if you had the chance to use it. Also there is always the possibility that you'd edit an article that was included in the trial. ϢereSpielChequers 20:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi there WSC, I hope you're doing well :). I spotted your sig in a few VPP discussions, and thought you might be interested in this BRfA. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled rights not registering?

This user's creations are still coming up on special:new pages. Is it a software glitch or have I missed something? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably a software glitch. If you are talking about articles created before they got the Autopatrolled flag it is a known glitch at least to me, and I'd be uncomfortable changing it because sometimes an editors newest articles merit autopatrolled status whilst the ones they created 4 weeks ago still need to be categorised etc. If it relates to articles created more than a few minutes after you set the flag then I'd say we have a bug. ϢereSpielChequers 07:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This editor was given AP rights on 23 June 2009. I came across several of his new creationswhle doing NPP over the last few days. They create a lot of stubs about moths and insects, but apart from being stubs, they are all correctly sourced and formatted. I think it's a glitch. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be a glitch - http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:NewPages&hidepatrolled=1&username=sasata currently shows all patrolled ϢereSpielChequers 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rollback offer

Thanks for offering Rollback. I would use it to revert the occasional vandalism & other questionable edits that I run across. Also, since I do make the occasional mistake, it will come in handy there. ```Buster Seven Talk 12:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, coming right up. ϢereSpielChequers 12:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Autopatroller

Thanks a lot, it's very kind of you!--F Ceragioli (talk) 11:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome, thanks for creating those articles ϢereSpielChequers 20:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Autopatroller/Review

Hi! I just wanted to say thanks for upgrading my status. I feel a little bit silly about how thrilled I am. :) Also, I love your username. Thanks! HistoricMN44 (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You are very welcome, thanks for creating those articles. Glad you like the username ϢereSpielChequers 20:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello. About four and a half years ago you offered me rollback rights on my talk, and I declined because at the time I typically addressed older vandalism when I was reverting edits. However, I have recently modified—or at least expanded—my editing focus due an acquired interest in working in the general area of new user test edits and vandalism. As a consequence, it appears that rollback capability could save me keystrokes on some articles over the old "bring up a previous revision and make it current" approach. I realize it's been a while, but I was wondering if your rollback offer still stands. Thanks for your time. -- Michael Devore (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course, but please remember only to use it to revert vandalism. If there is a significant chance that what you are reverting is goodfaith then that revert needs to be done manually. Thanks and happy editing! ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll reserve it for the most egregious stacks, which are unfortunately not as uncommon as one might hope. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewers

Happy New Year WereSpielChequers. Thank you for adding me to the group Pending changes reviewers. I take it as a response to the fact that I've made a lot of edits and haven't screwed up anything major - thanks for that vote of confidence. Are you also letting me know that there's a need for more editors to do that kind of work and you'd like me to do that? My list of wikithings to do is long, but if you think there is a need, I could adjust my plans. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike talk 17:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi SchreiberBike, I'm guessing that anyone with your level of edits has a fairly sizeable watch list and would sometimes be getting pending edits appear there, and everyone wins if you have the tool to handle them. Also I'm one of the people who would like to see increased use of pending changes to protect us from vandalism, and I try to balance protecting articles with finding more people to protect them. If you have time to visit Special:PendingChanges occasionally then extra help there is always welcome. ϢereSpielChequers 22:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do some of that. SchreiberBike talk 18:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Pending Changes Reviewer

Thanks very much for admitting me as pending changes reviewer, I will read up on all the guidelines before I head into the fray. Your vote of confidence means a lot!Smirkybec (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I must drag myself over to Erin sometime to go to one of your events. ϢereSpielChequers 21:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

First of all, i would like to thank you for adding me in this group. But, what does the term "pending changes reviewer" mean? Can you please explain in your own words! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Some articles are protected in such a way that edits by newbies and IPs don't get shown to everyone until a pending changes reviewer approves that edit. As you edit in an area where there will be a lot of information about living people, and your editing shows you know our standards re sourcing, I think it would be useful for you to have this right. If you check your watchlist and there are any articles on it with pending edits to approve or reject then they will be emphasised. See Wikipedia:Reviewing for more details. When you nominate articles for page protection one option is to ask for pending changes protection as opposed to semi protection. Thanks and happy editing ϢereSpielChequers 09:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Greetings from new Autopatrolled Editor

Greetings, Happy New Year, and many thanks for upgrading my editing status. You wondered why I hadn't been upgraded before and it might be because I tend to work in a very sparsely populated editing area of the wiki, namely Australian Literature. It can be a lonely place out there sometimes.

I hope you have a good wiki year, and many thanks again. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Perry and a Happy New Year to you too. Sparely populated perhaps at present, but as your cultural attache here in London might have said, always with a great future ahead of it. My own rather less academic private patch of the wiki can also get a little quiet, but there are always places like WP:FAC when you want interaction. ϢereSpielChequers 18:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Pending change reviewer

Er, thanks but what does it mean? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Found it. Keith-264 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on the assumption that anyone who has been around as long as you is going to have reasonable sized watchlist, and as I'm one of the people who puts pending changes on quite a few vandalism targets it makes sense to also appoint more of the regulars as reviewers. So if you see a "pending change" on your watchlist you are able to approve the good ones as well as reverting the bad ones. ϢereSpielChequers 20:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

319 watched pages at the last count; can't say I've seen a pending change label though.Keith-264 (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

They only get highlighted when you get the right, you can also request that a page is protected with pending changes if it becomes a vandalism target. ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

What does this mean? "added to: ‪Pending changes reviewers"

Hi! I received an email from you that says "Your user rights were changed. You have been added to: ‪Pending changes reviewers". What does that mean: the explanation pages were vague. Is this a pat on the back or a reprimand? Aboudaqn (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The former. It means that you can now accept or reject edits that are in limbo due to pending changes. So if any articles that you keep an eye on is protected with pending changes, you can if you choose check any newbie edits to that page and approve or reject them. In other words I reckon you've done enough here to make sensible choices re edits by newbies. I don't know if you are currently watching any of the pages that are under P/E protection, but if you do you will now start seeing a special marker on such newbie edits. ϢereSpielChequers 20:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Martin of Sheffield - reviewer right

Thanks for the review right. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you'd also like wp:Rollback have a read of the policy and tell me when you wouldn't use it. ϢereSpielChequers 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I doubt that I would use it that often however. Twinkle appears to supply a similar functionality and AUII has the advantage that the diff is visible before you hit the rollback. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi there, I saw a notification from you. I'm not sure if you were pinging me to get my attention or making a suggestion. I received a notification stating my rights had been changed. I hadn't made a request or anything so that confuses me. Do I now have reviewer privileges? Or were you just suggesting that I would be a good fit for this role? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, yes you now have the reviewer right, so if any of the articles you are watching come under pending changes you will be able to accept valid edits. ϢereSpielChequers 15:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10