Wikipedia talk:Co-op/Komchi

Welcome to the Co-op! We have a mentor for you.
Hello, Komchi! Thank you for your interest in the Co-op. You've been matched with Anne Delong, who has listed "best practices" in their mentorship profile. Your mentor will be contacting you soon to get things started. HostBot (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Komchi. Do you have some questions about editing Wikipedia? Or some edits you'd like me to comment about? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, Anne Delong actually I wanted to know how can I easily revert vandalism acts on Wikipedia. I know we could do it manually but is there any other method.Thank you.  Komchi ✉☆ 04:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , I looked at your contributions so far to see what kind of vandalism removals you have been doing up to this point, but I see that you haven't been much involved in this area of editing. There are advanced tools for reverting vandalism, but they are generally given to those who have been fighting vandalism for quite a long time, and who have shown expertise in (1) telling the difference between vandalism, good faith mistakes, and edits you just don't like, (2) reverting the vandalism manually, and (3) leaving appropriate warnings for the vandals.  Simple vandalism can be reverted using the "undo" button when viewing the article's history, with an appropriate edit summary.  To begin working against vandalism, you can start by reading Vandalism.


 * After looking through your contributions, in my opinion the area that you most need help with is identifying reliable sources. For example, you have been added information to articles and cited press releases from companies as references.  Please don't do that, because press releases, even if they are in a proper newspaper, are not independent sources; they are a form of advertising written by the companies to promote the importance of these companies, and the facts in them are not checked by the newspaper editors but printed as is.  We Wikipedians should only use sources that are neutral and independent, as well as reliable.  Sometimes these type of sources are not available, in which case the information should not be added.  Don't be surprised if other editors removed this information and the press release sources.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I actually worked on an article Kurkure, and snack brand and there was a controversy that it had plastic in it and so an unregistered user always put 'plastic' in the 'Ingredients' section. After a warning by a bot he did it again and this time he added 'DO NOT EAT IT, YOU WILL DIE' which was kinda unacceptable to me as I have done pretty good amount of work on it. I did not know what to do at that time as now I know it would help me a lot.


 * By the way the thing you talked about reliable sources, I actually used a press release as a source once or twice (when I was new on Wikipedia) but now I use reliable sources from Wikipedia. By Press Release do you even mean the organizations(e.g Asian Banker Awards) itself who awarded the Company(e.g ICICI bank).  Komchi ✉☆ 15:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was particularly talking about press releases from the company that was the subject of the article. The one you are talking about from an organization that gives out awards is a little better, unless the organization is closely affiliated with the company receiving the award.  It is a weak source, even so, because (believe it or not) some groups of companies create an awards organization just so that they can give each other awards, arranging it so that everyone gets some, for the publicity.  If the awards are for real accomplishments which are recognized within the particular industry, then at least one journalist who writes about business topics will have been at the awards ceremony and reported it in a news source, maybe a trade paper or industry journal, even if it didn't make it into the daily newspapers.


 * About the plastic issue: If there was a controversy which was reported in a reliable source about the ingredients, that should be in the article, as well as the results of any investigation, or reports of denial by the company, or however the controversy was resolved.  However, adding "plastic" to the list of ingredients or giving advice about whether to eat the product is of course not acceptable.  If it's one user or one IP editor who keeps repeatedly adding inappropriate material, and won't discuss it calmly on the article talk page, you can give leave warnings on their personal talk page, and after several tries, report them at Administrator intervention against vandalism where they may be blocked from editing.  If it's several different persistent IP editors messing up the page, you can ask the administrators to "semiprotect" the page so that only registered users can modify it, at Requests for page protection.  Make sure it really is vandalism, though, and not just a good faith disagreement about the page's content.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)