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.
  

Chetsford (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit war again on People's Mujahedin of Iran, no matter what the reason is, you will be blocked from editing, immediately and without further notice. Also, you are not to revert that article, at all, for at least one week. Next time, please heed the warnings or the sanctions are going to be much more heavy-handed. El_C 18:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:It is true that I said proposed text by Stefka was suitable but I stressed that other users' opinion was needed. Without waiting for other opinions, Stefka edited the article. My opinion was never changed and my revert was not the Edit war. Of course, I try to be more clear. When I see that the user did not correctly pay attention to my comment and edited the article based on what he guessed, was not it allowed to revert?Saff V. (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not when I ask for the edit war to cease, no. El_C 07:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:Yes you are right, you wared us to prevent Edit war, but It didn't seem to me reverting to longstanding Version when users did not get my mean, can be Edit war. I reverted it to that version up to consequence would be gained. As I am trying to improve that article without disruptive contact, I have to say that edit was not done by the aim of Edit war, Anyway I apologize.Saff V. (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saff V.,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the legacy of World War II

I already add the lead to Anan Lestaluhu. Can I remove the tag now? I forgot to remove =Anan Lestaluhu= tag. Wira rhea (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

definitely Yes !Saff V. (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Wira rhea (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how this edit isn't a violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: before press publish change button, I forgot to check to be sure that this source is there. I thought the source to be there because it might be the Chelcheragh operation had been referred to it. Of course, (before I added it to lead), Aftab operation had been also used on the body of the article, which had the source. Excuse me anyway, I have to be more careful.Saff V. (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise the first of those sources is an opinion piece, and the second is a testimonial? Meaning that neither of them are reliable for anything other than the author's opinion? Vanamonde (Talk) 14:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: if I were aware about their reliability, I never took them to RSN.I really didn’t know they are not reliable.Saff V. (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, keep it in mind. A critical part of what makes a source reliable is whether there is some sort of editorial oversight independent of the author. Most news sources have editors; most academic papers have peer review; books from good publishers have the publisher's editorial staff. Opinion pieces don't have that. They are reliable for the authors views, but only occasionally reliable for factual information, and that only when the authors themselves are notable/reliable commentators. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Saff V.. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Timeline of computing 2020–29, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: I can't imagine how the context could be any clearer, and similar timelines are linked at the bottom of the page Thank you. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]