![]() Support - Yes, really need this right now.I thought this what was supposed to have been changed already. Jbh Talk 16:11, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Reply This would, in my mind, mean issues would be more likely to be addressed before Google indexes the article and take some of the pressure off of reviewers in questionable cases. This would allow more experienced or specialized reviewers to check on whatever issue led the original reviewer found troubling enough not to pass. What I would like to see though is a queue of tagged but unreviewed articles. It also may lead to newer reviewers indexing something that is not ready for prime time because they forget to unreview. The review/unreview method i'd just clumsy. ∯ WBG converse 05:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Reply I guess provisions can be alsoimplemented to set the check-box to either of the two states (as default) and remember it, so as to not interfere with current workflows. I (thus) propose for a return to the old days, which effectively decoupled maintenance tagging and reviewing. The drawback is that the article creator receives 2 notifications:- one for the review, and another for the un-review. ![]() But the change meant that anybody, who was inclined to tag an article but not review it, was now being compelled to manually un-review it after the tagging. Subsequent updates ( T41208) removed the option in a bid to un-clutter the fly-out and reduce maintenance overhead. ![]() A screenshot of the old workflow is visible over here. For doing the review as well, you needed to enable a 'Mark as reviewed' checkbox at the bottom of the 'Add Tags' flyout. In the ancient days ( ), it used to be not possible to automatically review articles by tagging them. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. 38 what might help, and I'm looking for suggestionsĭecoupling maintenance tagging and reviewing.34 NPP Flowchart and paid editing/COI editor checking.32 Proposed Redirect autopatrols and bot.31 Tagging for deletion not marking as reviewed.29 NPP Source Guide progress report and next steps. ![]() 28 New Page Review newsletter November 2019.19 Messaging the creator from the Curation tool.16 CoI editors who refuse to answer questions on paid editing.10 Articles created in template namespace.8 Creations from moved or copy pasted drafts.5 Michele Martinez and Karina Macias - several curious issues.3 Sending a couple of more wishes to the current wish-list.1 Decoupling maintenance tagging and reviewing.Word would follow the formatting options configured under the section Cut, Copy and Paste. If you find the Paste Options icon annoying, you can disable it by un-selecting the Show Paste Options. You can select the default formatting options for different scenarios. Sometimes, Paste Options drop-down list displays a fourth option “Use Destination Style” if there is a conflict of style between source and destination Word documents.įrom the Paste Options list, if you click Set Default Paste, Word displays the Advanced options for Cut, Copy and Paste. This option is very useful while copying content from the web pages. which are part of your copied text and you want to retain only text. Select “Keep Text Only” option if you want to discard any table, pictures, etc. Select “Match Destination Formatting”, if you want the copied text to be formatted to match formatting of the destination Word document. Select “Keep Source Formatting”, if you want to retain formatting of the content source. If you click the Paste Options icon, a small drop-down list appears with the following three formatting options: When you copy content from a source file (like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, PDF, webpage, etc.) to a Word document, Word displays the Paste Options icon immediately at the end of the pasted content.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |