Wikipedia

User:Vigyani/CVUA/JackFrost2121

< User:Vigyani‎ | CVUA

This is an abandoned CVUA student page for User:JackFrost2121/User:PBASH607. The course was suspended due to lack of interest from the student and his below expectation performance.


Hi Prabash. This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Please always sign your responses to tasks/questions as you would on a talk page. If you want to discuss about anything in this page i.e. your course, you can do it on talk page of this course page.

Tasks

edit

Task 01 What is vandalism

edit

  Done Thanks JackFrost2121(Frostbitten?/ My Work) 17:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Task 02

edit

  Done PrabashWhat? 12:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Task 03

edit

  Done--PrabashWhat? 03:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Task 04

edit
  • Kindly find 3 examples each of vandalism, good faith but unhelpful edits, disruptive editing, edit waring. I will recommend you to find unreverted edits but if you are unable you can find already reverted edits. If reporting reverted edits, do not report your own.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  1. vandalism unhelpful --PrabashWhat? 13:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment Finnish this task, it was one of the easiest. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Questions

edit

After Task01

edit
  • Q: What is vandalism (on WP)
A: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a direct attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Such examples of vandalism are adding irrelevant content and crude humor to a page, intentionally blanking pages, and inserting incomprehensible content, and bogus into a page. PrabashWhat? 12:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment  Y Right, you are.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Q: Why would anyone vandalize WP
A: People who vandalize Wikipedia intentionally, are often bored and have a malicious intent to vandalize an article, some editors just do it for the fun of it. PrabashWhat? 12:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment hmm (Note:This question was asked merely to know your thoughts on this, you may be interested in reading WP:WILLY and WP:MOV)--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

After Task02

edit
  • Q: What is good faith editing?
A: It is when you assume that the editors edits and comments were made in a good faith manner. Most editors try to help the project, but not to harm it in any wayPrabashWhat? 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment  Y okay, I am marking this correct. But I hope you do better. Understand that I am not expecting an accurate answer. The purpose is that you understand/absorb the concept. Once you have understood fully, you can easily write in your own words. Just write what you have understood, do not try to be accurate. I am sure your teachers in university also won't like, if you just copy paste answers from the book. For other questions below, just delete what you have written and re-write by thinking on your own.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Q: What is disruptive editing?
A: Disruptive editing is a string of edits that have gone on for a prolonged period of time and is disrupting article progress on Wikipedia
 Y --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Q: Difference between vandalism and the good faith editing?
A: Unlike Vandalism, good faith is really unintentional and the editor did not mean any harm to wikipedia, but vandalism is intentional and is meant to harm the integrity of wikipedia. --PrabashWhat? 03:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 Y --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Q: Difference between vandalism and the disruptive editing?
A: Like Good faith, disruptive editing editing may be unintentional and the editor may mean no harm to Wikipedia but it still violates the guidelines. Maybe the editor does not know how to correctivly edit. --PrabashWhat? 03:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 Y --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

After Task03

edit
  • Q: What is consensus?
A: A consensus is when both parties arguing with each other about a certain issue has agreed on a diplomatic solution to the issue.This issue can be about an article issue or a vandal. --PrabashWhat? 18:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 Y --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Q: What is edit war?
A: An edit war is when usually two or more editors have a "conflict" with each other over a disputed topic, edit wars can make up constantly reverting content over and over again from both sides of the conflict. Edit wars are disruptive and disrupt the progress of an article. Edit Wars are usually solved by a diplomatic solution or a temporary block/warning on both sides. --PrabashWhat? 18:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 Y, Temporary block is to stop edit warning not to solve it. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Q: What is 3RR?
A: 3RR is a three revert rule to preventing edit wars, once it has been reverted three times, then after that don't revert again because it would be considered edit warring. The 3RR rule applies for 24 hours. --PrabashWhat? 00:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 Y, 3 reverts itself is edit warning, 4th can invite blocking.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Q: What is 1RR?
A:1RR also known as the one revet rule is used in the same manner as 3RR but instead of 3 reverts there is only one, this usually leads to no edit wars and disputes. Anyways it is often really good practice to discuss issues on the talk page. --PrabashWhat? 00:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 N, you have clearly not read WP:EW properly, read it again and come with a better answer.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A2:1RR, is similar to 3RR but goes by the term one revert rule. Compared to 3RR, 1RR is more stricter and some users ablige to that rule instead, they may also revert only when it is necessary. Prabash.Akmeemana 16:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 Y WP:1RR--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Q: When is 3RR allowed?
A:3RR is allowed and used when the edit war is happening frequently, and over a 30 minute period. --PrabashWhat? 00:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 N same as above.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 15:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
A2:3RR is allowed anytime when edit wars are occurring, it represents a limit to how much you can revert ones contribution, if the amount of reverts exceed three, you will be warned or blocked for 24 hours without notice. The next revert also may be applied after 24hours, but by this time consensus has been reached. Prabash.Akmeemana 16:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 N 3RR allowed means, when is it that you do 3 reverts and still not warned or blocked? Read WP:3RRNO--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 22:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Learning by examples

edit

Since you already have a good amount of experience with fighting vandalism, the above theory sections may not be very helpful for you. So I am starting this section, where we can discuss about your ongoing efforts in fighting vandalism side by side as you go through the theory stuff. I will try to go through your work and we will discuss here the edits which I may disagree with or I have not understood (aka I may not have done that probably).

Opposite opinion

edit
  • This is not a good faith edit and can be classified as vandalism.
Since the editor put in an image relating to the subject, but had content that did not belong there like the word "boner" I was quick to assume it was a good faith revert. Unfortunately STiki does not use images, and the image he uploaded was a picture of himself, therefore it was constituted vandalism. PrabashWhat? 11:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Usually if an editor insert these kind of words along with some possibly constructive info, then it is more likely to be vandalism. In such case you can click "Wiki-Diff" button on STiki interface, which will open the same edit in internet browser, where you can more carefully examine the content. I always do that, whenever it is the case of images.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
So making spelling errors on words that were previously spelled correctly are classified as test edits? PrabashWhat? 03:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Not always. Sometime it can be deliberate and so can be labeled vandalism, but rarely a good faith edit. This depends upon the contribution history of the editor. In this case, it is the IP's only contribution. So the miss spell is more likely to be a test edit. If upon google search you find a sufficient number of hits for the alternative spelling (i.e. miss spell here) then it can be termed as good faith. As it will mean that the alternative spelling do exist and is used by some people.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Need explanation or Why you reverted

edit
It was not intentional to damage the article, but it was also unintentional, that's why I marked it as a good faith edit PrabashWhat? 02:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
But this information is correct and since it was added in personal life, so it could very well stay.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Explanation needed PrabashWhat? 02:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Here, the editor had added the role for the actor like already mentioned for several other actors, so this was a constructive edit.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

User Warning

edit

You issued User talk:69.120.132.112 two level 1 warning consecutively. The 2nd warning should be level2.

Okay that was a Human error, I meant to put in a level two warning, but I have a sensitive trackpad so I just left it like that because I assumed it was okay to leave it like that. Thanks for the heads-up   --PrabashWhat? 01:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Which tool you used?--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Twinkle I think --PrabashWhat? 02:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes you use TW, then I suggest you be more careful with automated tools.--Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 03:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I fixed the touchpad issue in control panel settings for my computer and I just got a mouse so don't expect these filmsy mistakes again failure to do so will lead to trout slapping   --PrabashWhat? 03:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Vigyani/CVUA/JackFrost2121&oldid=1142400791"