Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2010/March
 |
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page. |
Please review articles
I created the following articles today, and I'm not quite sure they're all listed at the Newsroom as needing review; only one of them is for me. Or maybe, they are showing, and no one has time to review them, in which case I apologize in advance for being an annoying dumbass. The articles are: GM recalls 1.3 million cars over steering issues, Landslides in Uganda kill at least 100 and Apple sues Taiwanese mobile phone maker HTC. Thanks and/or apologies in advance C628 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- They are all listed. Please don't post for every review, we see em. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 02:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see all the articles you mentioned in the newsroom review queue. Perhaps you need to purge the page cache or do a hard refresh? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- All right, I got it. Not sure why I'm not seeing them, but if you are, that doesn't matter. And I'm planning on posting everything here, that would certainly qualify as being an annoying dumbass. C628 (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- lol. Sometimes DPL's get cached. (actually, they are always cached for efficiency reasons, but its not a very smart cache, and doesn't really expire when it should). If something doesn't appear in the newsroom, try purging the cache of that page as tempo suggested - http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Newsroom&action=purge . CAT:REV doesn't suffer from this issue. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- All right, I got it. Not sure why I'm not seeing them, but if you are, that doesn't matter. And I'm planning on posting everything here, that would certainly qualify as being an annoying dumbass. C628 (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I see all the articles you mentioned in the newsroom review queue. Perhaps you need to purge the page cache or do a hard refresh? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Review gadget and contest log
Is there some special step to add a point total to WN:WC2010LOG when using the peer review gadget? I just published Saudi Arabia arrests over 100 people suspected of having links to al-Qaeda, but a score has not been posted to the log. This makes me confused. Am I totally missing something? Thanks, C628 (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's supposed to add it automatically upon a successful review, don't know what's wrong with it ... I also noticed that the gadget occasionally posts two {{peer reviewed}} templates on the talk page. Might be a bug. Until then, we should add the scores manually. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Got it. I also saw you added your appropriate score; thanks. C628 (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, odd. Did you recieve any errors well reviewing the article. What browser were you using? (Note most instances of the gadget posting two review templates is that someone reviews the article twice [for example if the first time didn't fully work]. Sometimes the edits it makes doesn't go through, and I am really not sure why. Its very difficult to track down these issues unless they happen to me, and they usually don't) Bawolff ☺☻ 03:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- No idea if a different EPR anomaly could be related, but EPR also failed to sight an article late yesterday. --Pi zero (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I was using Google Chrome; no obvious errors (but it was the first time I've reviewed an article, so I'm not sure what exactly is normal), and only one review template was posted. The next article I review I'll try with IE or Opera and see if that makes any difference. Thanks, C628 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- An error would look like either a pop-up box (rare) or more common a message slightly above the sitenotice that says something like:
- I was using Google Chrome; no obvious errors (but it was the first time I've reviewed an article, so I'm not sure what exactly is normal), and only one review template was posted. The next article I review I'll try with IE or Opera and see if that makes any difference. Thanks, C628 (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- No idea if a different EPR anomaly could be related, but EPR also failed to sight an article late yesterday. --Pi zero (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, odd. Did you recieve any errors well reviewing the article. What browser were you using? (Note most instances of the gadget posting two review templates is that someone reviews the article twice [for example if the first time didn't fully work]. Sometimes the edits it makes doesn't go through, and I am really not sure why. Its very difficult to track down these issues unless they happen to me, and they usually don't) Bawolff ☺☻ 03:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Got it. I also saw you added your appropriate score; thanks. C628 (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
A local JS function experienced an error on an API request. Please leave a note at User_talk:Bawolff. Details: notarget: Cannot find a revision with the specified ID. <238:http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bawolff/mwapilib.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript>
(with the part after details obviously changing depending on the nature of the error). Also, what skin are you using (it should work on all skins, but haven't really tested it outside of vector very much)Bawolff ☺☻ 01:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Aargh, technical talk confuses me. :) I think I get what you're saying, though. I'm pretty sure I got the second error message you described; I remember a message at the top off the page, but didn't pay any attention to it. And I'm using the default skin, which, according to my preferences, is the vector skin (whatever that means). I should also note that I successfully reviewed American singer Johnny Maestro dies at 70 using Internet Explorer with no problems, although that wasn't involved with the contest at all. Sorry if that wasn't much help; I'm not particularly knowledgeable good with computer jargon. Feel free to ask for clarification. Thanks, C628 (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- yep, Vector is the default, monobook is the old skin (what wikipedia currently uses) and then there is a bunch of other ones that no one (other then Amgine) uses, so they aren't really tested with the gadget. Anyways, if after a review you see an error message at the top of the page, copy and paste it here (or at my talk page, or somewhere where I'll see it), as it might help in tracking down the problem. Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll try to remember to do so. Thanks, 75.195.87.82 (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- yep, Vector is the default, monobook is the old skin (what wikipedia currently uses) and then there is a bunch of other ones that no one (other then Amgine) uses, so they aren't really tested with the gadget. Anyways, if after a review you see an error message at the top of the page, copy and paste it here (or at my talk page, or somewhere where I'll see it), as it might help in tracking down the problem. Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)