User talk:Northumbrian/Archive 4

Reviewing
Thank you for reviewing articles. I noticed that you just reviewed Rahul Gandhi. While of course the main purpose of reviewing is to weed out malicious edits, I think it would be good if we reviewers looked a bit further than that. That change introduced a grammar error, and added nothing worthwhile. Adding "one of" to the superlative "most prominent political family" may make sense when there is no clarity who is most prominent, but in this case it only adds confusion where there was none before. It only raises the question: Who are the other most prominent political families? &mdash; Sebastian 04:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree it really doesn't add much, if anything, to the article. But, beyond weeding out malicious edits, my take is that another main purpose of the pending changes trial is to encourage anonymous editors to contribute, even if their first contributions are clumsy as this one was. Something as minor as this I'm willing to let pass through, as beyond my review, it becomes a cleanup issue.


 * My impression of the trial so far is that many reviewers are already going beyond the strict guidelines given on the project page: that if it isn't vandalism or a BLP violation, then let it through. I've seen edits reverted that I thought were fine; I've seen others let through that were absolutely appalling. What's becoming clear is that every reviewer is going to review pending changes at his or her own interpretation of the guidelines, and also at his or her own comfort level, and that not every other reviewer is going to agree with them.


 * Anyway, I think if you do look at my reviewing history, you'll see that on quite a few occasions I've gone past the pending changes guidelines myself, weeding out many edits that technically met the standards but that add unsourced content, introduce POV, etc, or otherwise honestly don't add any value (as you suggest in your original post). There are also other occasions when I have accepted an edit that was useful but needed cleanup, and I've gone in myself and added a source or copyedited the addition. Again, reviewers are not going to see each proposed change the same way but will deal with it the best way they see fit at the time. Northumbrian (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I like your intention to encourage new editors. I realize it wasn't clear from my post that that editor wasn't new; he or she has done the exact same edit before under a different user name. So it was a sockpuppet, rather than a new user.


 * Your observation is interesting; I haven't had enough experience to reach a conclusion yet. But obviously the introduction here is starting very differently from the one at de:wp. (I wrote something about that when the discussion started here a year or two ago; if you like I can dig it up.) I must admit, I don't know how to look at someone's reviewing history, and I even forgot my way back to the guidelines; it's strange that there is no link to that on Special:OldReviewedPages or Special:StablePages. &mdash; Sebastian 04:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know of a specific way to view a particular editor's pending changes either; but in my case (and a large number of other reviewers, I wager), you'll know them in my contribution history as all the edits with summaries along the lines of undid edit XXXXXXX by... :o)


 * The guidelines are here. To be honest, I'm sure I've rejected many more edits than I've approved, to the point where I thought I wasn't "doing it right" (that is, I was being far too strict) and went back to the pending changes feedback page and sought some perspective and guidance.


 * Recently, I've been consciously trying to approve more edits than I was at first, but I take your point about perhaps being too careless (as you say, I didn't notice that the edit you pointed out was not made by an anonymous user but rather a repeat offender). I have in the past, on suspicious edits, checked the page history or user contributions, but this one did slip through. Apologies for that. Northumbrian (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries - you are obviously more conscientious about this than I am. I wasn't even aware (or had forgotten) that the guideline currently was so limiting. The main reasons why I wrote to you were that it irked me that the sockpuppet had re-reverted my reversion, and that I always get something out of a discussion like this. &mdash; Sebastian 05:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - August 2010
Delivered August 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

KC Stadium
Hi, not quite sure about the edits you did to KC Stadium re the west stand. The table now has a different name to that in the text, should the text be updated to the table or visa versa? Keith D (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the text should be updated to match the table, forgot to do that. Apparently Hull City announced a new sponsor for the west stand, a resort. The old reference on the KC site (a PDF diagram of the stands) hadn't been updated to reflect that yet last I checked when I made the edit; the only other reference found was the brief press release on the Hull City site. I used that for the reference for the name in the table, but forgot to update the stand name in the text. I can do that if you like. Northumbrian (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the stadium name back to eBuyer in the table and just added a sentence about the new sponsorship agreement in the text with a reference to the Hull City press release. I think we'll need to keep an eye out for drive-by name changes in the table until the situation can be clarified a bit more. Northumbrian (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for investigating. I was also confused by the web-site, I had a note to check all of the stand names when the KC stadium site was back working but it does not clear things up as you say the diagram is not up to date. Just have to keep an eye open to see if the site changes the information. Keith D (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

hull city
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-s-Dani-Pacheco-has-signed-a-new-two-year-contract-article566413.html

source/reference for d ayala loan signing. stated as completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfs198 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...
 * That is a link to an article about a different player.


 * which also includes "Daniel Ayala has joined Hull on loan to gain first-team experience."
 * A search at Mirrorfootball reveals nothing.


 * so what.
 * Whether or not Mirrorfootball is a reliable source is debatable.


 * your opinion. Since when does your opinion count on wiki?
 * My talk page doesn't need the reference, the article does.


 * well since you're acting like the owner of the page I was highlighting that I was not just randomly adding transfer rumours to the page
 * I've moved this to the bottom of the talk page where it belongs.


 * good man. you have a nice day now too.
 * Northumbrian (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Jane Greer article
Hello again, Northumbrian. I am gettng a headful of Wikipedia this weekend, thanks to your good explanation skills. The reference that someone added to the Jane Greer page is lovely, but the page number is wrong. I went in to change it, and found that while everything else on the page is editable, the references section is blank. What's up with that?Terrierista (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. The place in the article where you can change the page number is the part enclosed in the tags in the article's main text area; those tags are generally placed right after the material that the enclosed source is referencing. What the tag at the bottom of the article does is:


 * 1) finds the source material enclosed in any tags in the article's main text and convert them to footnote markers that link to the actual reference in the References section, like this: [1]
 * 2) moves the source material inside the tags to the References section
 * So, to change the page number, click Edit at the top right of the article, then find in the edit box this text (it should be just a few lines down):
 * ...and then change the page number right at the end, before that final, to the correct one. You can then click the Show Preview button to show you what it looks like before you actually save the changes. If it's right, leave an edit summary in the little text box just above the Save Changes/Show Preview buttons (so other editors looking at the page history will know what kind of change you made; it's a courtesy thing), maybe something like "corrected page number in reference", and then click Save Changes. If it isn't right, you can go back and edit and then click Show Preview as many times as you want until it's right before clicking Save Changes.
 * Let me know how it goes! Northumbrian (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me know how it goes! Northumbrian (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope I'm responding in the right way, but here goes: I think I can breathe a little easier about this article for a while. I changed the incorrect date in one reference, added a third reference about the Writer's Digest award (which, BTW, WD says is not archived online), and left a brief note describing what I did. You have been indispensible, Northumbrian; thanks so much for your generosity. When my life settles down a bit, I think I might like to explore Wikipedia a little more.Terrierista (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Notable players for Hull City
Thanks for letting me know about the WP:GA status of Hull City. I've added the refs now WilliamF1two (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - September 2010
Delivered September 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 06:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2010
Delivered October 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - November 2010
Delivered November 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 12:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - December 2010
Delivered December 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 00:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2011
Delivered January 2011 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage. → Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 08:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)