Wikipedia talk:Editor review

Archives
April 12 2006 – May 3 2006 archived straw poll

Straw Poll

I've archived the straw poll. I'm not sure what the poll was really asking, since a voluntary process can never become official. I'd suggest an appropriate venue for further discussion may be at WP:MFD. I have removed the proposal tag, the process gets usage and is linked to, so I think it has some validity. Those that choose to use it may find it a useful tool, other people are just as welcome to ignore it. Steve block Talk 13:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: Just to be clear, there was absolutely no consensus in adopting this process in any official way, and any attempts to present this poll as having any approved status should be corrected. It would be hard to tag any such voluntary process as rejected when it is still in use. Steve block Talk 13:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Time limit

This list is getting looooong, and there's not much in place to keep it from getting too unmanageable. Right now, the only point in which a name will be removed is "when [the user is] satisfied with the feedback." With the rising popularity of ER, the list is only going to get bigger; and a longer list means that fewer people are actually going to receive any sort of review. I'd suggest creating a time limit, whereafter a name will be automatically removed and archived — for now, two weeks may be appropriate, although I think one week will eventually become necessary. Afterwards, if an editor would like to be re-evaluated, they can post their name again after a two or four week waiting period. This way, the list will be concise, short, and manageable for both reviewers and reviewees. Thoughts? Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 08:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good idea. I feel this project would fair well as a "rfc crossed with rfa" sort of thing. Get feedback from every chap across the wiki without the stress. -Zero^Talk 13:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Otherwise, the list is just gonna get way to long. Since there's nothing wrong with putting yourself up for review again (maybe after a 2 week waiting period), there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with having a time limit. The older reviews (like mine) are basically dead anyway... ConDem^Talk 13:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Computerjoe's talk 15:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

How about using subpages? --Osbus 22:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We do. Computerjoe's talk 07:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeh, ya do...nvm --Osbus 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Subpages sound like a good idea. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I archived the oldest five. The oldest one remaining is still over 3 weeks old (start date). NoSeptember ^talk 15:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the time limit be one month (30 days) from the listing of the subpage on the editor review main page. Kimchi.sg 17:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with one month. I've archived all the articles that didn't have activity in the last month. I've left ones started more than a month ago that are still active though, because there's a reasonable chance people will contribute to those. Icey 10:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Space in username

I know if someone has a space in their username, they have to replace it with an underscore fot the external links to work, but why not just use {{PAGENAMEE}} instead of {{PAGENAME}}, so then on the external links we use pagenamee and on the wiki-links we use pagename. Also, why not just use a "create" box to make a subpage?--GeorgeMoney ^T·C 07:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Pagename isn't used, I think. Computerjoe's talk 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the "create" box? --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 20:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry? Computerjoe's talk 20:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the instructions section of WP:SIGPOLL. --GeorgeMoney ^T·C 21:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Process Not Going to Pass

This will not become an official process. How about not making it a process, but just part of Wikipedia culture? Computerjoe's talk 07:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I like that idea. I am trialing it currently with my signature :) Ansell Review my progress! 11:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

I keep reading about how the editcount tool is no longer updating, but my edit count keeps going up anyway. What gives? -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Interiot indicates that there's some kind of bug in the replication, so apparently it's still replicating, just not accurately. In my experience it seems to be a few days behind, but I can't comment on the accuracy (or lack thereof). Ziggurat 22:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

I have here the template for Wikipedians. They might want to place it on their userpage.-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! (Tdixang is down with the flu and will be inactive) 09:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Capatilise

In the instructions on how to do this, it states you should go to Wikipedia:Editor review/Username (replacing username with your own) and start the review with the template. However, upon adding the correct template to Wikipedia:Editor_review I found that it couldnt see the review page I had just made. So, I follwed that link and copy pasted my review from the old one to the new one. It now found my review. I eventually worked out that there was a difference in capatalisation: I created my first page at Wikipedia:Editor review/Viridae and the one that worked at Wikipedia:Editor Review/Viridae (note the R). I was wondering what should be done about this - I tried capatalising the R in the instructions, but that breaks the link to the example review. Viridae 10:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Ignore that - I had a look at Wikipedia:Editor review/Username and realised it was just a redirect anyway. Have created Wikipedia:Editor Review/Username as the same redirect, fixing problem. Viridae 10:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, check out Wikipedia:Editor review pages and Wikipedia:Editor Review pages. Nice complete listing. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does Wikipedia:Editor Review/Username redirect to Wikipedia:Editor review/Siva1979? - Aksi_great (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

People editing the example, me think! Computerjoe's talk 16:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I put an RFD on Wikipedia:Editor Review/Username. See here. --Tuspm^{(C | @)} 19:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Alternative to editor review

I have been trying to find places to refer another editor for assistance with some sort of guidance, mentoring, or coaching (call it what you will), suitable for someone who is relatively new. There does not seem to be any sort of equivalent to Editor Review or Admin Coaching for less experienced wikipedians. Editor review might be too harsh a process for someone trying to learn in the early stages, and Admin Coaching is far down the road. If people could brainstorm for some sort of "wikicoaching" or "wikimentoring" program, it might help develop and assist a lot of new users. Agent 86 04:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A wikimentor program would be quite excellent. Wikipedia gets alot of great users but some of the complexiaties can turn alot of users away from it. Yanksox 16:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly volunteer to help with something like this. Should we propose it through Esperanza? If you do, don't forget to drop me a line about it. RandyWang (^{chat me up}/_{fix me up}) 08:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We sorta have one, don't we? {{helpme}} Has worked every time I've seen it used. ---J.S (t|c) 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Helpme is for use when you have a specific problem, ER exists for editors to give feedback on your edits. Computerjoe's talk 09:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Archival

If it doesn't bother anyone, I will be archiving all requests that are 30 days or older around the 10th of every month. --Evan Robidoux 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That'd be great! Computerjoe's talk 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reviewer userbox

As a means of advertising WP:ER, and of ensuring that no review goes unnoticed, I thought it might be worth advertising that I'm a regular editor reviewer on my own userpage. I've created a userbox that people might like to use for themselves, so that (hopefully) users will notice it and be able to approach individuals if their request for a review proves fruitless.

The code, here...

{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #F8F8FF; border:1px solid #CCCCFF;"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: #CCCCFF; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt;" | [[Image:Nuvola apps edu languages.png|43px]]
| style="font-size: 7pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em;" | This user is a regular '''[[WP:ER|editor reviewer]]'''.
|}

... produces this:

This user is a regular editor reviewer.

Hope you guys get some use out of this. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_patch) 13:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)