Wikipedia talk:Recent changes patrol/Archive 1

message: If the change is the most recent one, the diff=0, and that is relative. The next edit will make the previous edit in question be not the most recent one, and hence the diff will no longer =0. Sometimes we may get lucky, the next edit on the same article (which may or may not resolved the issue) will not occur until the problem is fixed. Or it may, and confuse other people as to what is wrong. --Menchi 06:16, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is definitely an annoyance. I encounter it regularly when loading a diff from recent changes (if recent changes was loaded a while ago). The ideal solution would of course be to somehow recode the diff tool to actually mark the latest edit not with the "0" id, but with a specific one. Anyway, that is why I've asked people to give the rough time of the edit, because that can be easily mapped onto the specific edit. Always open to better suggestions, though. - snoyes 06:28, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Is this the one where new edits not visible get rolled in to the diff thing? It's annoying most of the time, but it has its moments, as in telling when a reversion has happend when the diff shows up empty. Dysprosia 06:33, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: You could always make a blank space edit of a page, so the edit in question isnt the current version. (This might be a good temporary solution, but it might cause even more confusion.) Sennheiser! 14:15, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diff&#65309;0 

message: If someone uses a proxy site like handsoffmycomputer.com what can we do to prevent them from vandalizing?
:This is a very old question but all questions are answered in due time. The answer to this is that we block the proxy IP, so no one can edit from it. --WAvegetarian07:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IP Address Search

message: It would be useful if this page could be linked from the header of Recent Changes.  It would increase its visibility.  However, there's very little room to add it in as things currently stand. --Minesweeper 00:26, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Visibility

message: *Ukrainian language (diff) does it? --Minesweeper 03:39, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC) -- Clarified. Mikkalai 19:51, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed 

message: Could we make a list (protected page) of RC diffs under categories 
# Apparently in good faith
## Needs to be verified
## Verified
# Vandalism
## User subsequently blocked
## User not blocked
# Suspect trolling
I know it sounds ambitious... but lots of stuff on Wikipedia is ambitious :)
===Issues===
* Protection: Questions are bound to be raised about why non-admins are not trusted and why being an admin means that you are trusted. I have no answer but I think this idea is worth being presented. --Hemanshu 02:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do this.  You can do it yourself, though, if you want.  Just click on "history", then open the second-to-last version of the article (right before the vandalized version.)  Next, click the "edit this page" tab.  Then hit "save" and you're done. Isomorphic 03:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of diffs? 

message: * Protection: Questions are bound to be raised about why non-admins are not trusted and why being an admin means that you are trusted. I have no answer but I think this idea is worth being presented. --Hemanshu 02:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do this.  You can do it yourself, though, if you want.  Just click on "history", then open the second-to-last version of the article (right before the vandalized version.)  Next, click the "edit this page" tab.  Then hit "save" and you're done. Isomorphic 03:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues

message: Please see discussion at Talk:How to revert and reply there, not here. Thanks! —msh210 13:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverting process &mdash; too many steps?

message: For those who frequently do RC patrolling, please keep an eye on new bots.  If there is a problem with the bot, please make sure you cite it at Wikipedia talk:Bots. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bots 

message: There have been a few new delete templates that have been created recently, including , , , and . Most of these new templates have been nominated for deletion, and are currently being discussed at Templates for deletion. BlankVerse ∅ 18:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New delete templates 

message: Hello, I'm setting up some experiments at Wikipedia:Experimental_Deletion. So if you see XD templates or messages popping up in recent changes, that's just the experiment working, and we promise to clean up after ourselves.
Of course you can help out if you like! 
Kim Bruning 20:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Experimental Deletion

message: The page currently recommends:
:Run the page through an on-line translator, such as Google translate.
If you're implying to post the result back onto the page, it appears that would be a copyright violation against Google's terms of service. 
--Dforest 13:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Translate - copyright issues 

message: The answer to this is probably somewhere really obvious, but can anyone tell me if there's a way for RC patrollers to coordinate so two don't both work on the same article at the same time?  I never know when my help is needed and when it's redundant.  Thanks in advance, delldot | talk 20:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RC patrol edit conflicts

message: Is everyone keeping statistics? Kim Bruning 16:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Users cannot edit experiment 

message: Someone needs to replace the image with this one. anthony 01:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I posted this on Village Pump (proposals0. Thought I'd put a copy here.
Following the Seigenthaler incident, it would be easier to keep an eye out for possible libel on Wikipedia if there was an option to view the  Recent changes special page by category. 
* Firstly this would allow people with specialised knowledge to keep an eye out in all articles across a knowledge area and reduce the risk of misinformation getting in .
* Secondly we could have a new category called something like " Biographies of living people" which would identify all articles where there is a high risk of a libel being committed. Changes in this category would be given the highest scrutiny. 
The number of categories offered could be limited to the biggest ones.
Lumos3 08:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes - Suggested improvements to catch Libel and Misinformation

message: User:FlaBot has created a Bot that is adding Simple English to pages. This is creating extra pages in english about pages that already exist in english, thereby duplicating unnecessary pages that peole will just go into and edit up the same as the existing pages; if you get my drift. 86.2.136.146 12:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pse unterstand the differenz between simple and en. Until today there is no policy that say doent link it. But perhaps you should first get an account and be part of the wiki. --84.169.214.26 16:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism in progress

message: Not that any of us have editcountitis or anything...but don't you hate seeing all those   and  edits disappear. I just created . It is a userbox to display the incredible number of deleted edits you have. It links to Kate's tool, which is back up now :), and has a very simple syntax: . There is full documentation on the talk page. --WAvegetarian (talk)  (email)   (contribs) 01:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted edits userbox 

message: To the new pages patrol: a problem arose yesterday with an overzealous patroller.  I contribute to Wikipedia frequently.  Wikipedia has highlighted three of my recent articles at "Did you know?" (details at my user page).  Yesterday I embarked on my most ambitious article yet: Thou shalt not give Hitler posthumous victories.  This very serious subject touches a nexus of sensitive issues including the Holocaust, Nazis, Talmudic law, and intermarriage.  My computer sometimes fails and I have to save frequently.  I left an edit note to that effect and saved when the article had two paragraphs and three references.  Despite that, it received an instant deletion nomination.  The nominator has ignored my message and overwhelming support at AfD: the nomination has not been withdrawn.
I invite the editors here to view the article, which is nearly complete now.  It cites five full length books and some two dozen external sites.  It quotes rabbis, two ministers, a priest, and several lay scholars.  
A voter who was unfamiliar with the subject suggested merging a few moments after the nomination.  The nature of that suggestion gave deep offense to three Wikipedians.  We're supposed to have think skins on the Internet, I understand, yet a few truly hot button issues exist in the world and this is one of them.  The precipitous nomination really did no good for anyone.  I hope the editors here will correct the situation and consider future new articles in light of this incident.  Respectfuly, Durova 03:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a suggestion you could try making your pages in your user space and then only put them in the main space when they're ready. (This would be a good work around to your problem of needing to save often, and not wanting to have incomplete articles in the main space). --Bachrach44 04:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also you might consider the {{editing>> tag for saves in progress (as well as userspace suggestion). novacatz 04:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request for sensitivity 

message: Please check out Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers#Proposed policy - Good faith articles cannot be nominated for deletion too quickly. Melchoir 20:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newpages patrol: patience in AfD nomination? 

message: What happened to the old iconbox (RC Patrol)? Was it changed? Gadig 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iconbox 

message: New page patrollers should not create machine translations. (In fact, nobody should submit machine "translations"). From WP:TIE: "Never use machine translation to create an article! (This doesn't mean you can't use machine translation as a tool, but it does mean that machine-translated material dumped into the English-language Wikipedia is worse than nothing.)". People at WP:PNT are helpful and quick in dealing with foreign language material, and always produce much better articles than online translators. I have edited the respective section of the page. Kusma (討論) 18:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machine translation 

message: An idea to help RC Patrol by slicing up the RC feed.  Please comment there: User:JesseW/Recent_Changes_Slices.  Thanks in advance! JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Changes Slices 

message: Does anyone happen to know why the link to the IRC channel leads to a page that says 'This page does not exist.  Sucks, does it?'.Answerthis 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because you don't have an IRC client configured for your browser. If there is no program handling irc:// links, it will do that. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC Channel Problem 

message: For those of us who enjoy fighting vandalism, but are not admins, this proposed policy could make life easier. Let's go over and try to make it into something the community can accept. --Measure 23:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with you. But would this lead to abuse? --Siva1979Talk to me 17:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Try using User:Voice_of_All/RC/monobook.js. I've found it tremendously useful. --Bachrach44 01:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: of course there will be abuse! i don't think that's any reason for not adopting said policy, though. the whole structure of wikipedia is open for abuse as cvu-ers well know, and it still works.frymaster 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges]] 

message: Is QVFD even used?  There wasn't even an article until I went and made it.--Vercalos 06:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QVD 

message: I know the Recent changes patrol are often the first people to come into contact with newbies.  You are the most likely people to set a newbie in the right direction.  I would really appreciate it if you all could take a few minutes to read s:Wikisource:What Wikisource includes .  We have recently re-written this page to makes things clearer.  I hope this helps you guys with all the good work you do.  Feel free to direct anyone with questions to me as I check my Wikipedia talk page daily.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikisource 

message: claims that she is Willy on Wheels. Anyone want to check out her user page?
:There's no reason to believe her. (Hey everybody! I'm the crown prince of Abu Dhabi!) However, just her claim was apparently enough to get some admins to block her. She is clearly trying to get attention (why else would you do that?), to what end I do not know. --Bachrach44 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone see this user page? 

message: On March 15, 2006, the User:Terminatorius bot created by User:Audriusa blanked warnings from several user talk pages, specifically IP talk pages with a vandal warning template where no edit had been made within the last 48 hours. The bot was later stopped and the changes were reverted by the bot owner. Do you think this type of bot is a good idea? Please see discussion at WP:BRFA#User:Terminatorius - automated blanking of the vandal anonymous IP talk pages Wuzzy 00:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminatorius bot blanks warnings

message: how is this list compiled? skizznologic3.3 05:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  special:contribs/newbies 

message: As originally mentioned on WP:CVU, I've received some very good feedback on a vandal warning toolbox that I wrote. It's javascript that can be linked into your profile that adds some useful links to the Wikipedia toolbox only when a user talk page is being edited. It puts an array of warning messages just a click away, making it much easier and faster to leave appropriate messages, thus making it more likely that appropriate messages will be left.  I invite anyone who might find this useful to give it a try, and if anyone thinks it worth mentioning on the RCP page, feel free to work it in somewhere. --Kbh3rdtalk 16:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning toolbox 

message:  will not work with my IE6.0 browser. After the retrieving history part, an error screen comes up. This is what the details say:
Line: some number
Char: 3
Error: Object does not support this property or method
and the rest of the stuff.
Could I get some help?
Freddie 02:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of Help Please? 

message: Is there any Firefox extensions that could be of assistance to us RC patrollers?  I, personally, would enjoy having an edit box context menu that gives a list of warning templates and stuff.  If I knew Java, I'd write it; Alas, I only know VB.Net :(-- N3X15 02:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firefox Extensions? 

message: Just a request: Could one the present sysops create for me a new category "Czech expatriates", please? I do not think that I can do that myself as a non-sysop. Thank you. Please leave me a message on my user page.  Ross.Hedvicek 16:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disregard the above - I figured it out. Thanks. Ross.Hedvicek 17:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to create category 

message: I just did small edits to both the RC Patrol userbox and the NP Patrol userbox.  The RC userbox included a wikilink to WP:RCP, and the NP userbox included a wikilink to Special:Newpages.  I reconciled this discrepancy by making it so both would point to the correct page in the Special namespace for the phrase "recent changes" or "newpage", and would point to WP:RCP for the word "patroller". (Longer explanation of what I did and why here.)
However, this results in Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol including wikilinks to itself in the example userboxes at the top.  I believe that it is more important for the example userboxes to be accurate depictions of what would actually be on the editor's userpage than to obey the letter of the law regarding circular wikilinks. I'm aware that some editors may disagree, which is why I'm explaining why it was intentional here. --Icarus 04:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patroller userboxes 

message: I think there should be a tag for category vandalism. There's people constantly changing, removing, and creating unneeded and sometimes ridiculous categories. --- Lancini87 19:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be exactly what you're looking for, but there is WP:CFD --Bachrach44 21:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:CFD seems to be the best and only choice here for this type of vandalism. I wonder why? --Siva1979Talk to me 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Valdalism 

message: I've been looking at the Young Orphans tool for picking up images that have been uploaded by people looking to use Wikipedia as an image host, and have found a few candidates, but I have no idea what to do about them. Should I apply the Speedy Deletion tag, or is there anything more specialised? CNash 18:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image vandalism?

message: I would like to know what to do when I encounter an edit I suspect is vandalism, but I am not sure about it. Is there a place where I could list it for other users to consider? - Mike Rosoft 17:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point. I see a fair number of those at WP:RFI. Short answer is no, not specifically. The best thing might be to revert it and ask the author to provide a source/explanation for the edit. If they keep reverting it's either a WP:3RR issue or vandalism (depending on context). Petros471 17:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this point is being raised, I feel that it would be a good idea to list vandal edits for other users to consider. It could lighten the administrators' load considerably considering the ratio of admins to ordinary users in Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: This may sound like a couple of pretty obvious questions, though I'm a little uncertain about a couple of things: the page on Zambia had blatant vandalism on it (pornography splattered over it by User:Hasti). I reverted the page back to an earlier version; but I'm a little unsure of a couple of things - specifically:
*How can the associated images be removed (see those uploaded by the user mentioned)?
*Can anyone add warnings to other people's talk pages (e.g. )?
Nuwewsco 22:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, welcome. To answer your questions - yes and yes. See WP:IFD for info on the former. --Bachrach44 00:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As another note, the vandal didn't bother with a license for any of the images he uploaded, although they are credited as being from a commercial site. Orphanbot has flagged them all as not having license, so AFAIK they'll get deleted in a few days regardless. --Bachrach44 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New to vandalism

message: Hey - I'm sure I should have been able to find the answer to this, but:
Is there any way, when using testX-n, to name more than one article that the user has vandalised? It seems silly to put several test warnings down, but sometimes a few different articles are affected by a cloud of vandalism and it would be nice to let the vandal (and other RC patrollers) know that serveral bits of vandalism have been reverted. Thanks! Inner Earth 09:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, you can list as many articles in the test as you want, but the linking won't work properly. so, i suppose that means "no". in any event, the test templates are designed to be escalatory. so, if a user has three vandalisms of three different pages you should probably want to give them a test1, test2 and test3 as opposed to listing three articles in test1. frymaster 15:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple article vandalism 

message: I've been doing quite a bit of vandalism patrol lately, using pop-ups. Is it OK to use the plain ((Test)) warning when warning the vandal, or should I really be using something more specific? --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Warnings

message: I have created several user warning templates based on the standard test templates that are for use as warnings for inappropriate page creation. These templates included , , , , and . Please note that I did not create test1 templates or a nonspecific test2 template of this nature because the standard cooresponding test templates are appropriate as warnings for inappropriate article creation.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 08:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Test templates for inappropriate page creation added 

message: I've registered, but I think I can't patrol. Why? What are the requisites? Thank you in advance. --Gionnico 04:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I patrol? 

message: Hi, I've just spotted the new page Dharani Sutras of Peaceful Home. It looks like just plain religious material. Could somebody please check it out and see if it conforms with Wikipedia's policies? If it doesn't, what is the correct action to be taken regarding this kind of article? Thank you. --Húsönd 13:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something wrong with this? 

message: The term "vanity" is frequently considered derogatory by the subjects of articles, who then complain about it to the Wikimedia Foundation. This is undesirable, and it is a situation we can alleviate by trying not to use the term "vanity" in deletion debates and such (there's a host of other terms that are not offensive, such as "unencyclopedic"). To give people the right idea, I would suggest renaming the . Since (assumedly) the RCP uses it a lot, I would like to hear suggestions and feedback about this. >Radiant< 12:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the best way of avoiding people taking offense is to explain WP:NOR, and that the reason we can't accept their contributions is that we aren't qualified to do so, not that they're unencyclopedic (-:  JYolkowski // talk 22:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is, we've been doing that for years and it doesn't really work. If someone's article is called "vanity" and that person takes offense (which happens quite often) that person isn't going to ask for or listen to an explanation of how we use this term differently from the rest of the world - that person is going to make an official complaint to the office, which is bad for public relations. >Radiant< 08:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the template to {{tl|nothanks-personal}] and reworded it to emphasise the fact that we're not qualified to evaluate original research instead of saying that the subject isn't encyclopedic.  My personal opinion is that most of the damage is done in AFD discussions, not by the template.  My suggestion would be to create some tips for nominators as to as to how to nominate articles for deletion without biting the newbies.  Short version:  Cite content policies as reasons for deletion instead of WP:VAIN and WP:N.  JYolkowski // talk 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say not, because they've already been warned once. It's good at first, but not later. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Nothanks-vanity]] 

message: Is there a method so that RC patrollers can coordinate their work and make sure each edit is checked once and only once? Nossac 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coordination

message: I'm going to merge the tools section of this article into Cleaning up vandalism/Tools. They're pretty much the same thing. I'll then transclude it into here. Any opposition to that? --BradBeattie 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to [[Cleaning up vandalism/Tools]] 

message: I've just finished coding a beta version (pretty stable, I feel) of a program to easily facilitate Newpage patrol, and am looking for testers.  If anyonw would be inerested in giving it a go, could you please either leave a message here or on my talk page.  There will be some form of verificatiopn needed (like edit count, much like WP:VPRF, just to avoid abuse), but the conditions won't be very stringent!  Thanks Martinp23 00:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I'm posting here rather than on the main page because it is a beta still, and is quite hot off the press (I only finished it about half an hour ago).  Martinp23 00:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm interested in giving it a try. GringoInChile 02:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newpage patrol tool 

message: I've proposed splitting off new page patrol. I don't think this will be controversial. If no one objects in a few days, I'll do it.--Kchase T 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind giving me a bit of your reasoning? --WinHunter (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has objected, so I'm doing it.--Kchase T 05:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  splitting off new page patrol 

message: I have just semi protected the article Albinism, it has been coming under frequent vandalism attacks unfortunately theres not enough people watching the article over the past week there has been periods of over 3hours between the vandalism and its revert. I most cases these attacks are naming individuals with offensive comments. Can you please consider adding this article to your watchlists. Semi protection will reduce IP problems but some of these edits are coming from logged in accounts as well. Thanks for your helpGnangarra 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to keep a daily (and then some) watch on this article, but I'm going on a RL vacation that may mean a 2-3 week wikibreak, and I think I am the only antivandal consistently watching this article (aside from bots).  So, anything anyone can do would be Very Cool.  That said, I think that the semi-protect will eliminate most if not all of the vandalism, which appears to be almost uniformly from mean-spirited middle school kiddos at organizational IP addresses.  The only problematic non-IP attackers experienced so far are "Aren't all white people albinos?"-type trolls on the talk page, who get dealt with handily. The article itself is rarely (though sometimes, as Gnangarra notes) attacked by non-IP editors, so it doesn't need constant watching.  Also, there is a merge in-progress to get one section out of Albinism and into Albino bias, so don't be surprised if material on "albinos in fiction" (or something to that effect) disappears from the main article. If something like the "Causes" or another well-cited section not dealing with fiction goes away, then "Houston, we have a problem".  Thanks for the attention; I don't think it will take much, all things considered. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 15:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist request 

message: I have recently made a small Recent Changes Patrol emblem (a large image is needless). The opinion I state here is that using this image is quite better, and has originality than borrowing clip art:
What do you think? --Sub6 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good, we can at least use it in addition if not instead. delldot | talk 19:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion.