User talk:Mdriscoll03/Archives/2018/October

Rollback granted

Hi Mdriscoll03. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

GAB^gab 14:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing pending changes

Hey, I have noticed that you recently re-started reviewing pending changes. Unfortunately, I reviewed and had to correct quite a few of your decisions; so, I would like to ask you to be a little bit more careful in your pending change reviews. I'm particularly talking about the following edits to July 1, Diego Maradona, Witching hour (supernatural), Qatar, Hello Neighbor and Arijit Singh that you accepted. If you're interested in why I reverted these edits, you can take a look at my edit summaries, but I want to highlight the first three of the edits above. The edit to July 1 is the worst of them all and such an edit should not be accepted under any circumstance. Not only because it added an invalid entry with a red link to a DOY page but also because it disruptively modified an existing entry with the same red link. The edits to Diego Maradona and Witching hour are both blatant and unexplained removal of valid sourced content which also should never be accepted. In fact, the one to Diego Maradona was reverted by another user with the edit summary "Why on earth was this edit accepted?!".

I'm sorry if this post is a bit harsh but there were just a few too many problematic edits that you accepted; so, I wanted to make you aware of this before you continue your pending changes reviews. Just look a bit closer or take a bit more time for each review, that is all. And if you're not sure, you also don't necessarily have to make a decision. Something that helped a lot in the beginning was looking at the advanced review log to see what kind of edits other (experienced) reviewers accept and which kind of edits gets reverted (all entries with "(TW)" are reverts). Thank you. Felida97 (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@Felida97: Thank you so much for brining to this to my attention. I will admit after reobserving my edits I am asking myself the same exact question. I will definetly change my ways of how I review pending changes. Thank you for brining this to my attention. Mdriscoll03 (talk) 23:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)