PEPSI697

Pending changes reviewer granted

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:Reviewing pending changes#Requirements to accept an edit, when to accept an edit
  

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Have a nice day. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi PEPSI697. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account . Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

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 trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Shashka

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shashka. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 08:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

U even did not read the article! Shashka is a back sword of Ethnic groups in the Caucasus, just adopted by Cossaks, so it is should be called of as backsword of peoples Caucasus 82.200.143.211 (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Having another look at the revision. Unfortunately, I stand by my decision and the edit appears to be non constructive to me. Sorry about that! Unfortunately, I won't restore the edit for you because it doesn't look appropriate for a short description. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 07:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

as U have better English than me, may U add explanation to the Short description? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.200.143.211 (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend you to see Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Short description as it has more information. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 10:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Phyllis O’Donell

Matt Warshaw’s Encyclopedia of Surfing spells Phyllis’ surname correctly… but most do not. It must have given her the shits. 119.12.217.10 (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've double checked the revision that I've reverted at Phyllis O'Donnell, if it's the correct way to spell "O'Donell", please discuss on the article's talk page if there are any major changes like changing the name. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Final warnings

Hi, if someone continues to vandalise after a final warning, eg {{uw-vandal4}}, please report it to WP:AIV so that administrators can block if necessary. Twinkle can help you with that and a lot of other functions. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make sure to report the IP user or user to WP:AIV after a final warning (level 4). PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 20:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Improvements

I was just wondering how to improve Wikipedia pages so that entire world can read them with lots of information 2A00:23C7:DC80:D701:4182:9CCF:2EF6:6961 (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

While I assume your edits were good faith and you were trying to help improve Wikipedia, I would recommend before publishing an edit that you leave an edit summary (especially when deleting content). To leave an edit summary, leave it under Briefly describe your changes summary box. If you delete content without an edit summary, it may be reverted. Thanks and happy editing. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 08:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Gwyn

There is a separate page for these people Gwynne. 5.34.1.69 (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware of that article and assumed the edit was non constructive. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 10:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism versus good faith edits

Hi, Pepsi697. When you're doing recent changes patrol, please keep in mind what is vandalism (a bad faith edit that is obviously designed to harm to encyclopedia) and what are good faith but unconstructive edits. For example, somebody doing copyedits that go against the manual of style, changing dates in articles, or changing all the British spellings to American spellings is not editing constructively, but they're editing in good faith and our community should not treat them like a common vandal. Plus, it's more effective to leave accurate warnings. An erroneous anti-vandalism warning isn't going to cause somebody to change their behaviour- they're going to be scared off, or they're going to ignore the warning and carry on doing whatever it is they were doing. Anybody who has edited as an IP knows that recent changes patrollers just... randomly revert constructive edits sometimes, (I used to be rvv-ed for removing promotional language, adding links, removing BLP vios, and so on, and there's an anti-vandal IP who regularly gets rvved for removing vandalism) so it is very easy to tune those warnings out. So, in future, instead of leaving warnings like this[1] for edits like this [2], please go to their talkpage and write a quick note, similar to the one you wrote in the edit summary when you reverted the edit. Thank you, and carry on! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I left a level 2 vandalism warning because I assumed that they were deliberately doing it on purpose, I agree that I should have assumed good faith. It was a misunderstanding. Thanks. PEPSI697 (💬 • 📝) 22:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The difference between vandalism and good faith edits

As per above. Please understand the difference between vandalism and good faith edits. Your revert of a fix on old unnoticed vandalism in Lumpia was frustrating, even with the edit comment explaining why it was done. You were now trying to keep the vandalized version by reverting that edit. The article page was vandalized in May 2024 when China was inserted as the origin with no sources, despite this specific type of spring roll not being Chinese. It originated from an adaptation of the Chinese spring roll using different ingredients. But it is not from China and can not be found in China and is an important part of the national cuisines of Indonesia and the Philippines.

You made me come out of retirement just to say this.  OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, please calm down. I re-reviewed the revisions again and see they were possibly constructive. The edits didn't appear constructive to me.

I've made many mistakes recently with comparing good faith edits vs bad faith edits for some reason. Probably was just bad luck. I never intentionally did this on purpose to revert it back to vandalism. I thought I was reverting vandalism but apparently was reverting it to the vandalised version.

I understand what is good faith and what is bad faith per WP:AGF and WP:BF. Good faith is when an edit is constructive and bad faith is when an edit is vandalism.

I also understand that not every IP users are vandals, per WP:NEIPIAV.

I patrol recent changes and sometimes it can be hard to determine whether an edit is vandalism or not, it can be really hard sometimes. I try and review revisions and what they did carefully before reverting them.

Please also assume good faith to me when using this talk page per the notices above the topics.

Thanks PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 04:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hard Boiled "Foxy"

In the movie Hard Boiled, Stephen Tung is apparently credited here as Foxy for some reason. Is this from the dub of the movie? In Chinese his name is 小高 (Xiao Gao) , it can be written in English as Siu (萧). However I do also see him credited as Little Ko in some places and I don't know about this either. No other character is listed by there dubbed character name other than Lionheart (who's name is just Police on Chinese wiki) 100.43.110.137 (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I get it. But still please publish a reliable source to back up and verify the content as you didn't provide a reliable source. If you need help with citing a source, I recommend you to see Help:Referencing for beginners. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 05:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It'sssss...

Christmas!! Merry Christmas! Have a joyous time :) jolielover♥talk 05:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jolielover: Thanks very much. Merry Christmas to you too, have a good time. Thanks. PEPSI697 💬 | 📝 06:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)