User:Dipankan001/CVU Academy/Ducknish

Ducknish
So here I'd give and ask you a few questions about vandalism. Please do not copy and paste from the Wikipedia policies and essay. A: I'd call vandalism a willful attempt to diminish the quality of Wikipedia. That could be anything from adding nonsense or profanity to an article, to making subtle changes that create factual errors. As to the example, I wouldn't call that vandalism exactly, more along the lines of spam. A: Vandalism: this- obvious attempt to diminish the quality of the article by adding offensive nonsense
 * So what is vandalism in your own words? Give a brief description. Is this a vandalism?
 * What is vandalism and what is not vandalism? Give examples.

Not vandalism: something like this- the user attempted to add their own view to the article and violated WP:NPOV, but didn't show any intent of disrupting the quality of the page.

A: I think good-faith reverts ought to be used in cases like above, where information added clearly shouldn't be left in the article, but there is no reason to assume acting in bad faith. I would either simply explain the revert in the edit summary, or, in cases like the above where policy was directly violated, utilize a low-level template with possibly a personal explanation as well.
 * What is good-faith revert, and when should it be used? Should the person be notified with a warning template or a self-composed message?