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.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.
This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Sophie Lewis (author), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please don't do this. Many editors prefer spaces in citation templates. This is unnecessary, potentially disruptive, and violates WP:REFVAR, which says that the editors who established the citation style are the ones who set it for the article. I prefer spaces, and you didn't discuss on the talk page and get consensus before unilaterally removing them. In generally, unnecessary edits should not be made. Also, your edit summary was misleading, saying you were correcting a typo. That is also discouraged. Skyerise (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with my language. Many editors do not use visual editing tools. We rely on the templates being easily readable and editable by having spaces in citation templates. Per WP:IAR (ignore all rules), it is completely within my rights to revert edits that make an article harder to edit. Go complain about it wherever you want, you are simply wrong and any such complaint is likely to WP:BOOMARANG. Skyerise (talk) 11:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Guardian angel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Skyerise, I haven't looked at this--maybe it's the same problem in Existence. Est. 2021, spaces in templates are NOT typos. I put one after every parameter to make sure that a template is not one long single line. Please don't do that anymore. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: apparently they did it to 356 articles before I happened to notice it on one of my watchlisted articles. Then they took themselves to ANI, saving me the trouble! Skyerise (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's literally what you proposed me to do in the previous thread, so yeah, I'm glad you boys are having fun. I just answered y'all on the noticeboard. Goodnight. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 01:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was this nonsense fun for you, Skyerise? Est. 2021, I think us boys are both kind of scratching our heads over the usefulness of your edits, considering the time we spent on Yamantaka. Seriously, if you're going to be picky about curly quotes, be picky about double curly quotes too. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's getting that using automated tools doesn't exempt one from WP:BRD nor has he acknowledged on the ANI thread that automated edits should never be restored after a revert and certainly shouldn't be edit warred over. I suspect if he doesn't explicitly acknowledge that there, he's likely to be blocked. And no, that's not nonsense. Skyerise (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamfang: I'm always open to constructive criticism and proposals, but I don't see any of them here. What's the point of this new thread? I mean... Glad to know you're amused, but please let me know when you grow up and we have something to constructively talk about. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 11:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Skyerise. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I refer to telling the above user to "grow up". Personally, I'd like to say that to you, but I don't. Skyerise (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let it there. B.S., Haha, saving me the trouble!, drop the bomb, it sucks, whatever floats your boat, I am amused... Here's a partial compilation of the civil, mature and constructive attitude y'all showed both here and at the ANI. Do you really think I'll let you talk like that? Do you think your threats scare me? Are you gonna take the food from my table? Y'all really need to grow up. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 11:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 11:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: Let me introduce you the basic golden rule: "Show respect and you'll receive respect. Show lack of respect and you'll receive lack of respect. That's on you to choose." Do you want to go on writing unrespectful and immature comments like B.S., Haha, saving me the trouble!, drop the bomb, it sucks, whatever floats your boat, I am amused? Think about that and answer yourself. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 11:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are mostly comments from other editors and have nothing to do with me. The two comments I made (B.S., saving me the trouble) do not actually attack you and don't run afoul of the no personal attacks policy. Now, if I were to call you "thin-skinned" (which I'm not, I'm just using it as an example), that might be considered a personal attack. But telling two editors now to "grow up" is certainly a violation of policy. Skyerise (talk) 11:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yeah, and exactly how much "respect" did you have for my concerns about your removal of spaces from templates? Exactly none. So don't lecture me on respect, dude. Skyerise (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that your reversion of my edits to Śuri restored multiple HarvErrors which I had painstakingly corrected. Please install the error reporting tools so you can see such errors and not revert productive work. Documentation is linked above and at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. Your "preferred version" that you reverted to has 33 glaring errors in orange lettering when you have the proper tools installed. The error reporting tools tell which citations are not used, which short citations have no corresponding full citation, etc. You are working blind and don't appear to understand what other editors who use the tools are doing when they fix these problems.
Every single source that I moved to further reading was not cited using {{sfn}} templates. This is easy to determine when they are moved to further reading, b/c the tools will highlight an error next to the short citation that refers to them and next to the further reading item itself when something in further reading is actually cited. Use of tools allows an editor to clearly determine what sources are actually used and what sources are not. Also, if an article uses CS2 citations, then we list the sources in the "Works cited" section (the heading activates the error checking, as does the Further reading heading) and we do not also create a list of ref tag enclosed citations in the {{Reflist}} template. Referencing style should be kept consistent. The article was a complete mess before I fixed it. Skyerise (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: Sure, feel free to fix the HarvErrors I can't see, but you also moved to further readings sources that are actually cited (whereas in the previous text or in the expanded one), like Servius, and others apparently got lost/deleted, so citing them gave me back citation error. Please, let's collaborate constructively. I'm now going to restore the expanded article without editing the reference section, will you take care of it? Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 11:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't. Only Servius 300b is cited. Servius 300 is not. Install the tools so you can see what you are doing: it's relatively simple. The sourcing on that article was excessively complex, broken, and impossible to understand where it is broken without the tools. If something is cited inline (which is deprecated), then it needs to be converted to an {{sfn}} template and the further reading item then can be moved to Works cited and the "|ref=none" tag removed. Skyerise (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked again. If I remove the "ref=none" tag, the Servius 300 reference throws an error, because there is no corresponding {{sfn}} reference to it. Skyerise (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: Probably because you edited Servius 300a into Servius 300, without the A. If you look at citations section, it is cited. Would you like me to fix this or do you prefer doing that yourself? Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 11:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer you install the tools so you can see for yourself that that is not the case. You keep making a big mess every time you touch the article. I will continue to revert until you can correct it properly yourself using the tools. Skyerise (talk) 11:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I had restored the expanded article without touching the references, why did you revert that? Please, don't be prejudicedly hostile, let me understand what issues you refer to. I'm just trying to expand and improve the article. What's this "Lulu" thing you're talking about? I literally didn't edit the references. Moreover, if I cite Servius300a and you remove the A from the sources, it will give back citation error. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 11:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You added a citation to a Lulu.com edition of a book. Lulu.com is a self-publishing operation. (See WP:SPS). We should not be citing self-published edition when other independently published editions are available. For one thing, it throws the quality of the source into doubt, and could be consider promoting a publication that someone is making money from. Skyerise (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: You're clearly evading the Servius300a issue, which you caused and lied about. By the way, as already noted by DuncanHill, Babelon was a not numismatist. the Lulu is a reprint, does not affect reliability. Look at the source, don't leap to conclusion based on a recent republication. This attitude doesn't appear to be constructive. Est. 2021 (talk·contribs) 12:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "merge" anything; 300a is cited, 300b is cited, they are both in Works cited. 300 is not cited, it's the full set of volumes, and the citations are only to individual volumes (i.e. 300a and 300b), not the whole set, so 300 is not cited. I did not change any of the citations, just separated them into cited and not cited. Please avoid making personal attacks by accusing me of things I did not do. And even if it is a republication, we don't cite the Lulu edition. Cite the first edition or any other edition published by an independent publisher - but there is no reason to cite the Lulu edition when other editions exist. Skyerise (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there were still further errors left after you edits and I've reverted the whole thing again. Est. 2021 needs to install the tools and stop working blind. Skyerise (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By all means carry on then. You were already posting that you had fixed everything, when it clearly wasn't fixed yet. Skyerise (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=icon}
