Jump to content

User:Fogster: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Create "thoughts" section
Line 50: Line 50:


=== My Subpages ===
=== My Subpages ===
[[User:Fogster/ThingsToDoList| Things To Do List]] | [[User:Fogster/SchoolPages | School Pages I Watch]]
[[User:Fogster/ThingsToDoList| Things To Do List]] | [[User:Fogster/SchoolPages | School Pages I Watch]] | [[Images I Uploaded]] | [[Pages I Started]]

Revision as of 15:59, 24 April 2008

About

I often try to take a wikibreak, but then the next day I look something up on Wikipedia... And notice a typo... And fix it... And then look through the article's history... And find vandalism... And look through that user's contributions... And find more vandalism... And revert it... And leave them a message asking them to stop...

These days I spend most of my time patrolling Special:RecentChanges for vandalism. I also get enjoyment out of doing cleanup of articles, spell-checking, Wikifying, and NPOV-ing articles. I periodically contribute content, but 98% of what I do is keeping Wikipedia shiny.

While I absolutely support the deletion of outright garbage, I err on the side of inclusion in the iffy situations. There's a big gray area between what Wikipedia:Notability expressly permits (as well as what common sense dictates) and what Wikipedia:Notability does not permit. We shouldn't have Wikipedia pages about your dog, but if there's a subject that people might Google to find more about, I think Wikipedia should keep the page.

Thoughts

  • I've never understood why editors/admins are so incredibly protective of User:Jimmy Wales. (Yes, I know who he is.) If I were him, I'd rather have my user page vandalized all day long than have people vandalizing actual articles on Wikipedia. This isn't to say I condone vandalizing his page, just that I don't see why people consider vandalizing his page much different from the people who keep vandalizing Orange (fruit) or whatnot. Sometimes a WP:RfA entry will say something like, "I don't support 'only warnings' unless they're doing something egregious like vandalizing Jimmy Wales' page" or something. I don't understand the logic.

Rants

  • Vandals: Yes, you really can edit almost any page here. That doesn't mean you should. Come help us, rather than screwing up what thousands of us work so hard on.
  • Editors: Please use edit summaries!
  • RC Patrollers: Please, please, please:
    • Especially in cases of obvious malicious intent (versus what look like well-intentioned, but misguided edits), please take a minute to look through the user's contributions. Oftentimes, they'll vandalize multiple articles before someone reverts one of them.
    • When you revert a change identified as vandalism, leave a note on the user's talk page. This is very important when it comes to trying to get persistent vandals banned on WP:AIV.
    • When someone else reverts a vandal's edit, don't immediately go leave a note on the vandal's talk page. You can wait a few minutes and see if they do, but it's really confusing (and frankly, annoying) to have someone beat me to it. I view the steps as connected: whoever reverts the change should leave the note explaining that they just did it.
  • Anyone doing cleanup: When you find a block of text that sounds really awkwardly-phrased, as if it weren't written for Wikipedia, take a sentence and Google it. It's easy to spot Wikipedia:Copyright violations this way.

Counter-Vandalism

WP:AIV - Administrator Intervention against Vandalism | RecentChanges | RecentChanges, IPs only | WP:Vandalism

General

Wikipedia Signpost | The Five Pillars of Wikipedia | Manual of Style | Wikipedia:Featured article criteria | Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools | The Wikimedia Servers

Rules of Thumb

My Subpages

Things To Do List | School Pages I Watch | Images I Uploaded | Pages I Started