User talk:Jschnur/CVUA

CVUA

I saw the response by Anderson9990 on your rollback request and decided to closely review your reverts since you posted it. Here's two which I thought I'd feed back on:

• [1] - things such as this obviously aren't supposed to be there, but it's definitely not vandalism. Instead, I suggest that you undo it normally and write a short note on the user's talk page to explain why.
• [2] - it's a 1 character removal, so unless the user has been going around doing this on other articles then it's safe to say that this isn't really vandalism. Try to use rollback (AGF) for this.

These small mistakes haven't caused any big problems but obviously it's important that you're not misidentifying anything as vandalism. :) If you want I can go back through some of the edits before the rollback request which Anderson referred to. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Both of those edits resulted in me posting a nice friendly welcome on the users talk page. I do take your point, though, that I should not have used the rollback vandalism link. Lesson learned. Please do comment further on Andersons criticisms. I'm here to learn. Jschnur (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'll look through them in a few hours, as there is a couple of other things that I need to do first. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of 10 diffs which I found just from your July reverts which aren't strictly vandalism:

1. [3] - non-NPOV
2. [4] - non-NPOV
3. [5] - unsourced, badly placed information
4. [6] - unsourced, badly placed information
5. [7] - unsourced, and possibly a BLP violation
6. [8] - reads like a forum comment
7. [9] - links to a non-existent page on trwiki
8. [10] - terrible spelling, text useless, wrongly placed
9. [11] - seemingly non-notable person
10. [12] - non-NPOV, written like a comment instead of encyclopaedic content

None of these are vandalism. I've written a small (as small as possible) comment for each about the revision(s) you identified as vandalism. Note that these should've been reverted in my opinion - but not as vandalism. And some not as AGF either. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed each of the above diffs and I see what you mean. None are strictly vandalism (although some are pretty close!). I should not have used the TW:Rollback vandalism link on those because of the edit summary it creates. May I ask (for educational purposes) which ones you think I should have AGF'ed? Jschnur (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], and [18] should've been done with rollback (AGF). --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh and BTW please look at a somewhat perplexing case for me where I may be guilty of violating the 3 reverts rule. Its at Indian literature where I noticed an IP (User talk: 59.161.128.21) making a destructive edit which I initially assumed as incompetence rather than vandalism. A friendly welcome at first. I reverted a further indentical edit from the same IP and gave a slightly sterner warning. Then, worringly, the same indentical edit from a newly created account, User talk: Toms Berk , whose only edit was that one. Sock puppetry!? I placed a sock puppet warning on his talk page. How would you have handled this one? Should I report this? Jschnur (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

After re-reading 3RR I realise that I didn't transgress that rule. 3 reverts are OK. Jschnur (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep, definitely seems OK. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The question is should this be reported as a sock puppet? I don't want to be accused of biting newbies. Jschnur (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Krenair, Thanks so much for all of the above. Very useful. I will go through it in detail when I get the chance. (Real life is interfering with my CVUA studies :-) ) 02:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC) √ Done. Jschnur (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

HUGGLE

I have rollback now but HUGGLE still says "Unable to log in"! Any ideas? Jschnur (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I get this message "Huggle is not enabled for your account. check user configuration page." Jschnur (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

OK Sorted. As a last ditch measure I actually read some documentation and created the special huggle css page with enable:true on it. It (huggle) appears to be working fine now. Jschnur (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that requirement could be made more clear. :) --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a session at patrolling with HG. It is usually very good at working out which warning template to use. When you get the chance, please review my reverts. Jschnur (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I gave this a couple of days to get a larger number of reverts to look at:

1. [19] - not editing test or vandalism
2. [20] - this should be dealt with using revert AND warn for vandalism. "addition of dubious unsourced content" is a bit light for something so obviously vandalism.
3. [21] - when selecting that reason keep in mind the resulting summary - 'on another user' is not necessarily appropriate for such a situation as they may not be a Wikipedia user.
4. [22] - should've been a full revert & warn for vandalism in my opinion.
5. [23] - while it's not supposed to be in that article at all, I'd probably go with 'dubious unsourced content' or similar for this.
6. [24] - vandalism. Not really negative content however.
7. [25] - "the most wonderful person in the world" is not negative. :P
8. [26] - should you dare follow the link and view meatspin.com, you'll see why such an addition is vandalism. Definitely Not Safe For Work.

You're getting much better. Keep going! --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Thanks also for the commented diffs above. I did some more HUGGLing (is that a word?). I've made some more mistakes even after trying to take on board your comments. I've found that HUGGLE sometimes doesn't do exactly what I wanted it to do. Its also easy to post the wrong warning. I would like to customise HUGGLE a little to help with AGF reverts. Its a matter of experience I suppose. As I get more familiar with the interface I hope to improve further. Jschnur (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I did another review of your reverts over the past few days:

1. [27] - it's a fictional character, not a living person.

• OMG. I'm embarrassed that I missed that!

1. [28] - definitely vandalism.

• Yep. You're right. My bad!

1. [29] - you broke it in a way I did not think was possible.

• I didn't notice that in fixing one link I broke another.

1. [30] - I would assume good faith here.

• Yep. I was too quick on the trigger.

1. [31] - definitely not a test. I would say vandalism or factual errors.

• Yes. Given the world still exists, definitely a factual error (as well as vandalism).

1. [32] - vandalism, not removal of content.

• Agreed. I've hit the wrong menu item.

1. [33] - this is actually a British/American spelling difference. We use 'jewellery' and the Americans use 'jewelry'.

• Actually I knew that. I was reverting a change to "jewelry" because the original had the UK spelling. In an article about an Indian actor the form to use is debatable. I did AGF but the edit summary should not have said "spelling error".

1. [34] - not even relevant to the article, clearly copied from another one.

• Mea culpa - bad edit summary on my part.

1. [35] - saying someone is awesome isn't really negative, though it's obviously in the wrong article.

• As above.

1. [36] - I think that a mixture of good and bad reviews makes the article neutral. I doubt that this addition is a NPOV violation.

• I'm embarrassed about this one too. It actually improved the article in terms of NPOV. Happily, I note that the editor has reinstated it.

1. [37] - it's non-encyclopaedic but I wouldn't call it spam.

• Wrong edit summary again :-(

1. [38] - definitely vandalism, not good faith.

• As above.

1. [39] - doesn't appear to be vandalism or edit testing.

• Its hard to know what it is! Should've AGFed.

1. [40] - also doesn't seem to be vandalism or edit testing.

• I don't know why I did that. I must have been seeing things. Note to self: Stop patrolling when tired.

Keep up the good work! --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've gone over your diffs and made in-line comments. Feel free to start a new section. Jschnur (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Long time no see

Hi Krenair, I haven't heard from you for some weeks. I hope things are well for you. Please let me know if you would prefer not to be my instructor or if you are simply taking a wiki break from CVUA. In the meantime, I have been developing/practising my HUGGLE skills. I believe my anti-vandalism efforts have improved with time. I hope you agree. Question: How does one graduate from CVUA? Jschnur (talk) 05:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm still willing to be you're instructor, I just haven't been on this wiki a lot lately. I intend to review your recent reverts soon. As for graduating the academy, the process is not clear to me (you're my first student) and doesn't seem to be documented on the pages, so I will ask about it. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey. I managed to catch one of the CVUA coordinators on IRC and discuss this with him. I can basically just say you've graduated when I feel you're ready. I intend to do another review soon and if I agree with the way you've done things then you'll've graduated. :) --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Another review

I just reviewed what must be almost 100 of your most recent reverts. Here's my comments:

1. [41] - You weren't supposed to revert EmausBot here.

Oops. One revision too far. I hope EmausBot was not offended.

Hehe. Looks like it re-did it's edit soon after though! --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

1. [42] - Factual error.

Changing a birth date from 1863 to 3011 is not only a factual error but coming from an IP with 2 recent warnings, I'm afraid I took it as vandalism. Does a recent history of warnings warrant this? Your thoughts would be valued.

Ah yes. In that case I'd say go for the generic "Vandalism" option. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

1. [43] - I wouldn't really call this edit testing, so use vandalism in cases like this.

Noted.

1. [44] - Not edit testing or vandalism.

This edit did indeed seem like a constructive edit...until I saw the "Hi Jilli" right at the end of the diff! Did you see that? Do we really allow edits like that to stand? Perhaps I should've just deleted the offending text but a red flag popped up in my mind which cast doubt in this case. Why does an editor do good work in improving the prose of an article just to wreck it all with a stupid little edit right at the end? I would be interested in what you would have done here.

Hm. What I would do here is just undo the last "Hi Jiji!" revision and assume good faith on the rest. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

1. [45] - Doesn't seem to be edit testing or vandalism...

This was certainly not vandalism. I was totally wrong. I initially thought it was an insertion of unrelated text. I failed to appreciate the context of the editor's partial edit. The editor complained and I immediately apologised. This encounter led to a pleasant correspondence on my talk page where, amongst other things, I encouraged him/her to create an account. (see my talk page topics Jack Andraka and MHS)

--Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Krenair, I really do appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing my reverts. I've looked over your diffs and comments and responded where I thought appropriate. I have asked a couple of questions above. Best regards. Jschnur (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

PS Does that mean I get 95/100 :-) Jschnur (talk) 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've responded, and yes. :P --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

More comments

1. [46] - Looks like good faith.
2. [47] - this doesn't seem like edit testing or vandalism, but I can't think of a better reason.
3. [48] - I would call this vandalism, it's not edit testing.
4. [49] - Same as above.
5. [50] - "He is beautiful" is negative? :P
6. [51] - I would go with removal of content here instead.

Overall, you've improved hugely since you started, and I agree with a huge majority of your reverts (obviously, there are some I've had to talk to you about on this page). I'll check with someone else soon and if it's okay we'll mark you as graduated. :) --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)