User:Jacona/reversion

'Were you about to ask me why I reverted your edit? This page can help you faster than I can reply to your message.'

The official Wikipedia policy defines "vandalism" as: Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. This policy is intentionally vague to enable vandal-fighters to deal with any non-constructive edits they find.

Also note, there are also many types of edits which are not vandalism but which I would have reverted, with a different reason; Wikipedia:Not Vandalism provides more information, as will have my edit summary and the warning I left on your talk page (if I did).

My "criteria"
Following is an non-exclusive, open-ended list of things that I regard to be non-constructive and revert as such. If your edit fulfils any of the criteria below, that is why I would have reverted it.

Note: "edit" refers to changes (etc) in both the body of text and the edit summary.

General
G1. Anything listed on Wikipedia:Vandalism as a common type of vandalism.

G2. Any edit summary that lies (that is, for example, saying you corrected a typo when you actually deleted half of the article). This type of edit may have resulted in you being given two warnings for the same edit.

G3. Edits which have previously been reverted:
 * in good faith where a message/warning was left on your talk page;
 * without leaving a warning on your talk page but where an explanatory edit summary is left; or
 * and a warning left on your talk page, whether or not that edit should have been reverted in good faith or reverted without leaving a warning.

G4. A number of edits in a row, where at least one of them is obviously vandalism.

G5. Edits which change the adjective/s preceding "reviews" in articles about films, novels, music, etc where are reliable source is not referred to and an explanatory edit summary is not left.

Formatting
F1. Any edit to an article that consists of mostly or ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

F2. Almost any edit that consists of ALL CAPITAL LETTERS in most namespaces. Note: Basically, the only time I would not revert is when the edit makes you look so foolish that I decided it is better to just leave the edit so that others may know something about your temperament. You may want to read WP:CIVIL.

F3. Any edit that consists solely of text generated by clicking on the buttons above the editing window. For example:  and so forth.

F4. Almost any edit at all that includes text generated by clicking on the buttons above the editing window. Note: If it is obvious that the inclusion of the default text was an error, I may simply remove it instead of reverting.

Content
C1. Any edit that contains swear words in an inappropriate context.

C2. Any edit that compares someone or something to a body part below the waist or the chest or references those parts inappropriately.

C3. Any edit that says "xxxxx is gay" or anything of that sort.

C4. Any edit that includes a broad generalisation (eg "xxxxx is the best/worst/most incompetent").

C5. Any edit that uses the term boasts in the sense of ("xxxxx boasts a great selection of yyyyy")

C6. Any edit that personally attacks someone or something or which does not assume good faith with another user.

C7. Any edit that includes a non-notable person (eg on the article January 1 births "Alice’s boyfriend Bob").

C8. Any edit, not on a talk page, which apologises for vandalising. If you are really sorry, please, just stop.

C9. Any edit that adds defamatory or questionable content to a page without including a citation.

C10. Any edit that adds an external link which contravenes External links. After a warning further addition of spam links will be reverted as vandalism.

C10. Any edit that is rumour or speculation. If rumour has it, Wikipedia doesn't want it.

C12. Any edit which censors swear words used in correct context with asterisks (*)

C13. Crediting yourself in an article (eg. "edits by Joe Bloggs")

C14. Adding large chunks of foreign language text into the English Wikipedia

C15. Edits which use euphemistic terms such as "Nestled" and "Passed away"

C16. Adding information about family members in Biographies when the family member is not notable in their own right.

C17. Any edit that uses variants of the words below (or any others I haven't come across yet) as a direct object, an adjective, or an adverb: Note: anyone who actually is a "legend" (etc) will be able to back it up. Provide a citation to a reliable source or be reverted.
 * Legend
 * Lad
 * Rocks

Mistakes happen
If you feel your edit doesn't fall into these criteria then there's a chance I may have made a mistake in reverting.

Please leave me a message on my talk page and I will look into it. Bear in mind that you will get a much better response from most editors if you are kind and courteous that certainly is the case for me.

I will not respond to threatening or abusive messages so don't bother, they will just be deleted and reported.

You must also understand that I edit with neutrality. I do not care what your particular viewpoint and probably have no interest in the subject of the page being edited, so before you accuse me of being an "*ist" or of some kind of "ism" or accuse me of having a particular viewpoint or bias, I do not. I do not care who you are or where you come from, or the topic of the article, if I feel an edit is non constructive I will revert.

I shamelessly stole, and changed, this from Fraggle81 who "shamelessly stole it from Callanecc who "shamelessly stole it from Dougweller, who "shamelessly stole it from J.delanoy".