Wikipedia talk:Editor review

Question about review request

what happened to my review? it was opened on july 22, but i don't see it on the list. please let me know. irt is at: Wikipedia:Editor_review/Sm8900_(2). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to transclude it onto the main page, as stated in line 3 of the instructions "After you save the page, add {{Wikipedia:Editor review/USERNAME}} to the top of the list on the Editor Review page. Be sure to replace "USERNAME" with your username." Once you do that, it'll show up on the main page. Netalarm^talk 22:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

thanks! have done so. you're right. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving...

I have archived requests 30+ days old with at least one review - sorry it hasn't been done in a while, real life kind of got in the way (having a baby tends to do that!)

I am hoping to get back to doing it regularly (every Friday, if possible) - I also hope to get some more reviewing done (it's been even longer since I did that!)

Thanks to everyone who has been doing reviews - it's always nice to see them being done! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I really miss the bot :( I emailed Wronkiew about it a while back, but haven't received a reply, and it doesn't seem like I will. I was wondering, someone might have the source code. The only thing I've found is this, but BAG and Toolserver might have more. We'd have to look into the licensing / copyright issues though. Netalarm^talk 23:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that I'm back on Wikipedia for a bit of time every day, I'm quite happy to continue the manual archiving - it's not that hard to do, and doesn't take too long! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor_review/Airmatic

Is there some sort of process to remove review requests that are clearly... odd? I think he's looking for a peer review of the article. Someone might want to just archive this one as being not enough edits to review. Netalarm^talk 23:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to archive that now - the comments received are sufficient, I think! As for the process I'll be using... it's being bold! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 06:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have archived my own request

I believe my request was filed well over one month ago, with no responses, I have archived the request. Ronk01 talk, ^{Editor Review} 18:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent header issue fixed

Recently I modified the editor review templates to make it easier to create editor reviews. This update basically allowed requesting editors to have to fill in one less box - the username. I've also changed the header that users see when creating editor reviews, making it (in my opinion at least) easier to understand. However, one part of this system (auto fill username) was not functioning as planned, as it used {{SUBPAGENAME}} everywhere it was transcluded, meaning that the header for the review would actually say "Editor review" instead of the username. I have since fixed this issue by substituting it from the template. I've resolved this issue, and sorry for any inconveniences this may have caused. If anyone finds any other problems, feel free to fix them or report them here. Thanks. Netalarm^talk 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what's going on with the categories? Why are some users in Category:Wikipedia editor review instead of in Category:Wikipedians on Editor review? -- œ^™ 13:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry about that. It seems that I forgot some noinclude/include only tags on the template. The category WP editor review is meant for templates used for the administration of the project, while the WP on editor review is for editors that are currently on an editor review. I've looked over the pages in the second category, and it appears that there are several pages that should be in the first category (or not suppose to be there at all). I guess nobody really took a look at the behind the scenes organization... until now. I'll go ahead and fix when I have time, unless someone wants to do it now. Netalarm^talk 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Instructions - instruction 3

Hi

I realise this may be a bit of a kicking myself in the nuts question, but, is it possible that instruction 3 is not there ?

I have read the first post here so realise that I could have just done it and said nothing, but after reading the instructions again, starting another review with a dummy name and cancelling it, there does not appear to be an instruction 3 on either the intro page or the top of the form page which instructs to transclude anything to the editor review page.

Instruction 3 on the Wikipedia:Editor review page is simply "Follow the instructions above the editor form to complete your request." and the form header says "Wait to be reviewed. Your request will be archived manually after at least thirty days if it has received at least one review; the listing will also be removed from the main page. If you are satisfied with the feedback you have received, you may manually archive your editor review before the end of the thirty-day period."

I have also purged the page cache so will now do it manually :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, you are correct. The system was changed a few weeks ago so now a bot handles the transclusion, with no manual input needed. Back in the July (when the post you're referencing was made), requests needed to be manually transcluded onto the main page. The directions were rewritten to reflect that, so now you simply have to enter your username, fill in the form, and click save! And then wait for a review... :P Netalarm^talk 05:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

help!

i want to have another review but When i make another my first one pops up help! Parker1297 ( Talk to me · Sign my autograph page.) 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)