User talk:Cassiopeia/CVUA/GoldRomean

Good Faith or Vandalism
Sometimes when I'm unsure whether an edit is good faith or vandalism I just AGF. Is that okay or should I leave it to more experienced editors to decide for themselves next time? GoldRomean (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , You can find the my comment on "Good faith and vandalism" in Assignment 1. Cassiopeia  talk  05:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * K. GoldRomean (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Messy Links
(A little unrelated to vandalism but) how do you make a link look like this: [1] instead of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page? Is there like a special way to do it or do you just type [1]? GoldRomean (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * , Nest the URL with square bracket - see here in source edit mode - .  If you want to replace it with text then you need to leave a least a space after the URL and add the text you want before closing it with square bracket - see here in source edit mode -  Wikipedia Main Page. Cassiopeia   talk  05:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ty. GoldRomean (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Test Edits or Vandalism
^ I'm a little confused on how to tell the difference between a test edit and vandalism. GoldRomean (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is the assignment question. Vandalism edit is edit. that the editor intention to harm Wikipedia project and it is usually very obvious in nature. Test edits are edits that the new editor edit Wikipedia with the intention that they would like to know they can actually edit Wikipedia as most sites you can ask questions, submit requests, or edit on blog/social media section but not on cyclopedia sites. So they just want to see if they can actually edit Wikipedia. Edit such as adding a space, hi, hello, testing, change an alphabet or removing a number and etc will be considered a test edit. This only apply to new editors who have one or two edits. If an editor remove/change an alphabet/word then add the back, we call it a self revert test edit. There is a talk page template for test edit to let the editor know they can actually "test" their edit on sandbox (in their sandbox if they are a registered user or in Wikipedia sandbox page). Cassiopeia   talk  05:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to know :D. GoldRomean (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

BLP Sourcing
When I use Twinkle, it describes the template uw-biog1 as "adding unreferenced controversial info about living persons" but I thought that all info in a BLP had to be sourced, not just controversial stuff. Or is there a better warning template? GoldRomean (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * All content by right should be sourced by independence, reliable source for verification. Content that is unsourced can be removed from the page and that is not a vandalism edit. However, if sourced content removed from page for no good reason/no edit summary, then it is a vandalism edit and we can warn the editor. There are some edit/content that is particularly controversial or contentious which will harm the subject and that kind of edit is specially serious such as unsourced content of a subject is a homosexual, raping another person, assault another person, was killed in a boxing fight and etc. Other not serious contentious edit that is unsourced  such as they subject love coffee, score 99 points instead of 29 in a basketball match and etc. So there are two different warning template, one is LPB warning template and the other is just unsourced warning template. Assignment 3 will cover this topics and will provide all the warnings (multiple and signle) templates info. Cassiopeia   talk  05:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Thanks. I might've been using the wrong template then... GoldRomean (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Signing Responses
Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page. What does this mean? GoldRomean (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * sorry, it was a mistake. I meant just sign off on all talk page. Pls note that I have mild Irlen Syndrome - perceptual processing disorder. So I view the text on a page/screen slightly different from other people - see here on Utube]. Ask me if there is anything on this program which written in a way that does not make sense to you. Cassiopeia  talk  05:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, got it. GoldRomean (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Old Instances
If an edit is pretty old (say, more than a week) do I still warn the user? GoldRomean (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If an vandalism edit is an old edit, we dont usually warn the editor. We correct the edit on the page instead. However, if the editors made many edits that is disruptive, vandalism edits, unsourced edits, then we will write a message on their talk page in regardless they are registered or IP editor and let them know their unconstructive edits and what they should or should not do, links the guidelines accordingly and let them know the message is a warning to them if their edits were considered vandalism edits. If their edit was merely unsourced or formatting the template wrongly then we merely educate. To say all that, if we notice the editor makes a few vandalism edits, we will check their contribution log and find out they make vandalism edits on many other pages as well, we will revert their edits. Cassiopeia   talk  06:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! Very helpful. GoldRomean (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Reverting Unrelated Edits
If I find an article that has been vandalized (but subsequently edited, by, say InternetArchiveBot) should I still revert it, which would also revert the bot's edits? Or should I manually change it (even though it might take a long time)? GoldRomean (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, We always correct the edits if we can. The easy way to do that is to revert all the edits that were vandalsim edit and then re edit the correct edit (InternetArchiveBot) edit by copy and past the content info which we can find it on the history log of the page. Cassiopeia  talk  06:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok! GoldRomean (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Original Research
@Cassiopeia (I know I'm supposed to be on WikiBreak, but I'll still be editing sporadically here and there.) What's the difference between original research and unsourced? I mean, I kind of know but not really. Thanks. GoldRomean (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * unsourced is the edit added without source to support the claim. Original research is the source is primary source where by the source is directly from the subject - pls read No original research. Cassiopeia  talk  22:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cassiopeia Oh I get it now thanks! GoldRomean (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)