User talk:JeffRz

User:JeffRz/Personal Sandbox

Survey
Hi Jeff,

I had a look at your survey and answered as best I could. The trouble is that when looking at edits to any article they have to be taken in context and basing what I would or wouldn't revert on one to three words is difficult. For example, someone adding "Genetic engineering is controversial" with no cite is very likely to be reverted, while someone writing "According to Joe Bloggs, genetic engineering is controversial because ....." with a good cite and Joe being someone notable is very unlikely to be reverted. There's also a difference between reverting and correcting. If an editor wrote january and it was not vandalism then I would most likely just change it to January. It is also difficult to give an estimate of how often I edit or check the article. Basically I did some major editing to it eight months ago and now it is on my watchlist. The only time since then when I check it is when someone who I am not familiar with edits it or the talk page. Compared to many other articles this does not occur that often, most likely due to it's indefinite semi-protection. You might find it better to use an unprotected article like Genetically modified food, which attracts a lot more edits. As to other editors User:Tim Vickers springs to mind. He has been around a long time and although he has not edited Genetic Engineering much he has done a lot of work on other similar articles. Regards AIR corn (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also had a go... I think you might be repeating work already done though - User:Cluebot and User:ClueBot NG have been programmed to spot vandalism and revert it. They are very successful at the job and deal with the majority of times that people add "hi" or "penis" etc. I'd also echo Aircorn's point about the GE being semi-protected - this stops 90% of vandals. It hasn't always been protected though, as you can see from the protection log. Also as Aircorn has kind of pointed out, the thing that matters most is whether a reliable source is cited for the information added - if it is then it stays, if it isn't, even if I think it might be right, then I revert. Good luck! SmartSE (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

NICE
Hi JeffRz,

I just wondered, are you aware of and the NICE editing gadget? It seems the two of you may have overlapping interests.

I'll have a go at your survey next week when real life leaves me more time.

By the way, TimVickers mentioned above is semi-active at the moment so might not respond soon.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the user suggestion. Actually, is a real life collaborator of mine already! The survey will be down by then, but thanks so much for volunteering. I'll try and hit my Talk posts to note that at the end of the week.JeffRz (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Ha, ok, glad to hear that. Alright, I did the survey just then. I noticed "c" and "cent" juxtaposed in the words list – just in case you didn't realise, "C" has a specific meaning in genetics. I don't think I've ever edited Genetic Engineering itself, but I've edited related articles so answered as I thought I would if I had. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pivot Tool Feedback
I'd love some Wikified feedback about my Pivot tool prototype.
 * Do you think the tool helped you uncover vandalism, conflict, or better determine if you trust the page?
 * Do you see any use for it in your daily editing tasks?
 * Are there particular situations that this tool would really help you out?
 * What you think could be improved?

If you'd rather, you can also give me feedback anonymously in this survey

Thank you so much for taking the time to help me in my research! JeffRz (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, everyone who looked at it. I'll be posting more on my page as I work on the interface. JeffRz (talk) 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)