Jump to content

Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick04 (talk | contribs) at 16:48, 3 March 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Wikipedia Recent Changes patrol page serves as a utility which helps the people that scan changes on Special:Recentchanges ask a broader set of contributors to review specific "suspicious" edits.

Function

The scope is quite narrow — an edit should be listed here if it appears to be vandalism (intentional or not) by changing the facts presented in an article. Simple vandalism is obvious to spot and revert, but changes to the facts of an article are often hard to recognise as such. This is particularly the case with articles on specialist subjects (eg. Lie algebra).

Note that this is not a place to resolve article disputes, or request comments for articles that are being discussed on the relevant talk page. It is meant as a means to bring attention to a specific edit, which would otherwise get drowned in the hundreds of edits we get every hour.

See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Procedure

Just list a "questionable" edit at the beginning of the "Open" section below, giving the link to:

  • the article
  • the approximate time of the edit

Someone who knows something about the specific subject can then have a look at the edit and either correct/revert it or say that it is OK. In either case, just move the edit and details of your verification of it to the article's talk page in case someone becomes suspicious in the future. This will prevent verified pages from being reposting here.

Open

  • User:50precilachan is apparently a publicist for the Hong Kong manufactured pop duo Twins and contributes nowhere else. Is Twins considered an ad or legit? No other Wikipedians have contributed to it. Wetman 11:11, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC) (Talk)

Either way, the grammar needs major work :) At the moment, it looks like an ad to me - and there's too much personal opinion ("mogul Albert Yeung"). The "Twins' fate in the coming future" section can go as well - Wiki is for fact, not rumor. Nick04

Showing below 50

  • Community of Christ; Terms like "significant" and "majority" replaced with "small" and "some", is either term correct, is this POV? [1] --Flockmeal 20:34, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • 24.5.251.148 has been replacing text of Sutter's Fort State Historic Park -- twice on Jan 28, three times Jan 29, and again on February 28. Initially was just adding random characters, but last two edits replaced text of article with the word "Ricky." -- Aion 19:56, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Removal of over 3 proper nouns, without explantion by Anon: [3] --Menchi 02:43, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Purple, Orange (colour), Magenta and Red: [4], [5], [6] and [7]. The RGB values specified does not match the colours in the CSS-drawn boxes. Does computer-"red" contain yellow? Some of it sounds like 'original research' (defining red to ..., yellow to ... we get ...). Rasmus (talk) 11:56, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Sounds like rubbish to me. "Computer Red" is 255 0 0, so all the corresponding discussion of mixing those colours is irrelevent. You can't say what any colour looks like unless you define your colourspace anyway. Iridium77 19:11, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Philippines [8] - how many islands are there? Or did just two new vulcanic island surface? andy 08:54, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I frankly have no idea. Ever since I was a kid, we've been taught that there are 7,107 islands (7,108 if there's a low tide according to a joke). I'm quite positive that this isn't the accurate number anymore because of erosion and reclamation projects. --seav 21:52, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Georgia Byng and Rodman Philbrick. - seems to be some text added to the Georgia Byng article, and the Rodman Philbrick one created at the same time. Looks a bit suspicious? Idril 17:12, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
  • Contribs by 24.45.99.191. I know this doesn't exactly fit, but this person is incredibly persistent in adding 2 apologist paragraphs to variety of articles relating to white supremacists. A number of us have unfortunately done more than 3 reverts to each article. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 21:30, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)