User:Sifaka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 About me 2 Goals on Wikipedia 2.1 Random info 3 My Interests 4 Articles 4.1 Major Revisions 4.2 Minor Revisions 4.3 Humor 5 A Guide to Counter Vandalism: Cop 101 5.1 What is Vandalism 5.2 Reporting IPs or Users that are doing vandalism 5.3 The Blind: Where to watch for vandals 5.4 Spotting a Vandal 5.4.1 Examining the Article in Question 5.4.1.1 Legend of Changes 5.5 Cleaning up Vandal Messes 5.5.1 Reverting a Preexisting article 5.5.2 Getting rid of a vandal article 5.5.3 Check the Vandal’s history 5.5.4 Warning the Vandal 5.5.5 If the Vandal Strikes Back

[edit] About me

I am a college sophomore at Duke planning on majoring in biophysics. I am an editor as of Feb 10, 2006. I love lemurs. I have been to Madagascar (where I studied the Milne-Edwards's Sifaka) and Costa Rica. I like to code in Java, but I can't do Web pages.

[edit] Goals on Wikipedia

On Wikipedia, I want to focus on making articles more readable and clear. I would also like to add information to some of the lemur stubs. I also like to RC patrol during my non-existent free time. Beware of the wiki lemur!

Some links I want fast access to. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_spam_cleanup

[edit] Random info

• RC patrolling is a huge school distraction!

If anyone is bored and wants a stab at this physics question I have had for a while...

Suppose you have a massive, fixed, inclined plane and a thin (may be regarded as infinitely so) rigid rod of finite length. The thin rod is launched at the inclined plane along the rod's axis. The rod makes contact with the plane at an angle and without sliding bounces off. Assuming an elastic collision, how does it bounce? Does it bounce straight back up or does it acquire angular momentum and begin to spin? The issue I am having with this problem is that a particle would simply bounce off at the angle it entered in. A thin rod though, coming in with no angular momentum, would gain angular momentum if it behaved in the same manner. I am not suitably well versed in physics yet to know if the conditions I set void the conservation of angular momentum law. I spent a couple hours approximating this by dropping a pencil eraser side down under the force of gravity onto by a book propped up on one side covered in newspaper. When I managed to drop it so that I did not impart any spin, many times it bounced straight back up, but on quite a few drops I thought were good it also ricocheted off with angular momentum. That could be attributable to irregularities in the eraser and my judging of drops. It seems like if it was not supposed to bounce straight back up that it would never do so. Perhaps my biggest problem is understanding how to visualize the rod and how the forces are acting on it. Do you visualize the rod as a rigid body or a connected line of particles that influence their neighbor or what? Sifaka 01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ascii diagram of the pencil and the inclined plane
  
                      /| Inclined plane
rod moving -->       / |   
 __________         /  |
                   /   |
                  /    | 
                 /_____|
  
 **Note the contact will be at an angle**

If the rod is infinitley thin, the rod will contact an individual molecule (say) of the inclined plane head on. What sort of reflection (scattering) would you then expect?--Light current 02:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Interests

• Chemistry
• Lemurs
• Science in general
• Arizona
• Biology

[edit] Articles

This is the list of all the articles to which I added content or seriously revised. This does not include updates on related pages that relates back to the information I have included.

[edit] Major Revisions

The following is a list of articles which I have either created, significantly revised, or significantly improved by adding information.

• Hammond's Postulate (February 19, 2006) I added the actual postulate, discussed what the postulate is saying, how it related to rate and ratios of products, how to explain unusual results in light of the postulate, and started at the history.
• 2006 Duke University lacrosse team scandal (6 May 2006) I typed up a minute by minute timeline of the events, added a few notes and a quote and made a refernces section to which I redirected all the references
• Retrograde amnesia (12 May, 2006) I added some info about how the victims feel, a little info about the condition, and tried to deal with some plagarism.
• Milne-Edwards's Sifaka (May 12, 2006) I finally started it. I did the paragraph on locomotion on (May 12th, 2006) I may get aroung to the other parts.
• Farnesyltransferase (August 9, 2006) Added a lot of info about structure, specificity, function, and mechanism of the enzyme's activity. Not much by way of numbers though I have papers for that.
• Geranylgeranyltransferase type 1 (August 9, 2006) Created article and got the basic info started by copyediting out of FTase. Needs some solid data.
• Rab geranylgeranyltransferase (August 9, 2006) Created article and got the info by copyediting out of prenylation. Needs a lot of solid data.

[edit] Minor Revisions

The following is a list of the articles where I have added supplementary content without drastically changing the overall article

• Tetrahydrofuran (11 February, 2006) added solvent properties
• Indri (20 February, 2006) Added legend of Babakoto and a correction about the tail of the indri
• Duke University (4 May, 2006) I redid the opening paragraph and added information about merit scholarships
• Lemur (18 December 2006) I added an in pop culture section add a couple instances

[edit] Humor

April Fools 2006 modification to Question Mark: might I have changed every sentence into a question?

[edit] A Guide to Counter Vandalism: Cop 101

Getting rid of vandalism is a very important part of maintaining Wikipedia. Vandals will either change existing pages or create new pages. Revert the changes on existing pages and tag newly created articles for deletion.

[edit] What is Vandalism

The exact definition is on the main vandalism page. To make a long story short, any edit that does any of the following is usually considered vandalism.

• Adds offensive material such as words of pictures
• Adds personal irrelevant material (i.e. John Doe waz here! or hi!)
• Falsifies information, like changing dates (considered serious vandalism)
• Adds random characters or script
• Adds nonsense
• Purposeful misspelling (although sometimes it is a well meaning user)
• Adds spam (advertising or non relevant personal links) to external links section of article
• Deleting large amounts of text (completely deleting all the text is called page blanking)
• Adding or deleting controversial material (often by Trolls)

• adding or deleting sections of text that are controversial is a common vandal move. However for major pages there may be special pages to discuss controversies in depth, such as with Catholicism and Evolution. Unless it is obviously bad faith, if the user also has good edits behind them, a non-Neutral point of view warning may be more appropriate.

Badly written pages are not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Instead affix a cleanup tag to it.

[edit] Reporting IPs or Users that are doing vandalism

How do I report an ID or an IP of someone that keeps doing Vandalism? --Triage 15:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There are several places depending on the nature of the vandalism. If it is obvious vandalism, and the vandal has been warned, report to WP:AIV. If you want a watch on a user or for more complicated cases, see requests for investigation. In extreme cases see long term abuse, but that is only to be used in certain situations. For a general guide, see cleaning up vandalism. Petros471 15:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Blind: Where to watch for vandals

If you want to stop vandalism, the Recent Changes Page is the first place to start. There, you can see what updates and changes are being made as they happen. To watch it you simply hit the reload button on the page. However I find using the filters the best way to patrol. I especially recommend two of them in particular, the “hide logged in users” options and the “show newbies only” filter. I usually watch them both simultaneously.

Hiding logged in users shows only those edits made by people who don’t have accounts. While there are many legit users who never make an account or edit without logging in, many vandals just don’t make accounts. The “hide logged in users” filter is listed two lines above the beginning of the recent changes list. “Hide logged in users” is the option you are looking for.

Below are the last 50 changes in the last 7 days, as of 19:36 March 13 (UTC). Show last 50 | 100 | 250 | 500 changes in last 1 | 3 | 7 | 14 | 30 days Show minor edits | Show bots | Hide logged in users | Hide my edits Show new changes starting from 19:36, 13 March 2006

The “show Newbie edits only” filter is embedded in the Utilities line which is one of those small font lines high up on the RC page. Utilities: RC patrol - New - Newbies - Dead-end - Needy - Cleanup - Vandalism - Deletion - RfC - Community

Clicking the Newbies link will take you right to the newbie edits page. This page is very useful because it shows only those edits made by recently created accounts. Most vandals won’t make many or even any good edits on an account before they vandalize. What is really nice about this page is that it tells you if their edit is the most recent one made to an article (signified by the bold top).

Whether or not you use the filters is up to you.

[edit] Spotting a Vandal

This is the most interesting part. As I said before, many vandals operate through recently created accounts or don’t have accounts at all. If you have read Roald Dahl’s, The Witches, no one characteristic identifies a vandal 100%. The below list is simply a guideline of characteristics more common of vandals.

• Is a newbie or doesn’t have an account
• Doesn’t write up an edit summary following their edits or has a suspicious edit summary, especially when editing a major page
• Doesn’t have a user page (Their name is red)
• Edits one of the most vandalized pages or one that seems like a good target for vandalism
• Has a name with random characters or numbers that look sockpuppety.
• Edits a User page that is not there own

Looking the page that was edited is often a good way to catch vandals. The rule of thumb is that if it is a well known topic or person it is more likely to be vandalized. Common targets for Vandals are:

• Animal pages
• Anatomy related pages
• Major historical or important figures (E.g. Socrates and George Washington)
• Celebrities
• Countries and important geographical places
• Political figures, especially ones with the same name as major politicians
• Government related
• Schools
• Anything in the news or listed on the main Wikipedia page
• Major science pages (like evolution)
• Any kind of controversial topic
• Profanity pages
• Religion
• Date pages

Ignore changes to the Wikipedia:Introduction page or the Sandbox. Anything there is legit even if is offensive or bizarre because it is a place for people to experiment!

[edit] Examining the Article in Question

Always check on the article in question. Click on the article’s link in the Recent Changes page. You can give the page a perfunctory scan, but it is more efficient to compare earlier an later versions of the page. To do this, look up at the top of the page and click the history link which is right by the edit this page link. You will see a list of edits with bubbles next to them. Leave the right bubble next to the edit in question and click the left bubble to what you believe was the last good edit made to this article. In general pick the first previous edit made by a different user or an edit made by a non vandal user with an edit summary. Then click the “compare selected versions button”. On the left is the previous version, and on the right is the current version. Sometimes it is tough to decide if a change is vandalistic or not. Give users the benefit on the doubt. In general it is best to not do anything but wait. Add the article to your watch-list by clicking the watch tab at the top of the page and come back later to see what has happened to it. If the user has warnings on their talk page I would be very suspicious. If the article is written by a legitimate looking user, more likely than not the changes are good.

[edit] Legend of Changes

Red highlighted words mark single word changes between the articles. Sections that were deleted (or moved) between the previous and the current version are highlighted in peach in the left column with a little minus sign next to them, and a corresponding blank space in the right. Added (or moved) sections are highlighted in green in the right column with a plus sign next to them and have a blank space in the left. One important note: if someone moved paragraphs around or recategorized them, then the paragraphs will look like they have been deleted from one place and added to another. Make sure “missing” paragraphs are not simply relocated. If the edits appear to be vandalistic, then it is time to correct them.

[edit] Cleaning up Vandal Messes

First off, The official guidelines are on the main Vandalism page. Whenever reverting or tagging an article, add it to your watch page. Vandals will remake edits and remove tags. Check back on it frequently to make sure you stay on top of it.

[edit] Reverting a Preexisting article

If the changes are is a preexisting article then revert them to the last good edit after being sure you know when good edits stop and vandal ones begin. In the extremely rare case that good edits and bad edits were both made at the same time, first revert all the changes and then re-add the good parts. To revert, in the history, click the date of the last good edit made. When the page loads click the “edit this page” tab button. A warning will appear that you are editing an outdated version. Ignore it and scroll down to the summary. Then write in the box one that you are reverting a vandal edit. It is best to be descriptive, but you don’t need to include the contents. Below are examples of edit summaries. Replace “Vandal_User” with the name of the user

• “revert vandal edits by User:Vandal_User”
• “revert changes by User:Vandal_User to last version by User:Whoever_Wrote_The_Last_Good_Version”
• “revert vandal edits”
• “rvv”

[edit] Getting rid of a vandal article

These articles have no good history and are created as hoaxes or soap boxes or for personal indulgence. In this case you tag it for speedy deletion. To do this go to the speedy deletions page. On this page, it tells you the guidelines for speedy deletion and suggests you make a talk page and a few other things. If the page in question is clearly a vandal page, then just tag it and leave it at that. If it is more insidious, then you may need to make a talk page to discuss it. Badly written articles should not be tagged for speedy deletion! Instead leave a template suggesting they should be cleaned up. To tag an article decide what kind of article it is. Is it nonsense, a personal indulgence, etc. On the speedy deletions page a vertical strip on the left contains the templates for speedy deletion. Select the relevant one and copy-paste it to the TOP of the page in question. If the template has a place for you to fill out a reason, do so in the box, not in the article. Beware of new articles! Some people may write an article in small chunks and slowly. A half finished article is not vandalism. Add it to your watch-list and check back on it.

[edit] Check the Vandal’s history

Make sure that the vandal has no more edits and revert BAD ones if they do. To check the vandal’s history click the “contribs” button next to his/her user name when comparing selected versions. This will list any articles they have edited. If any of the articles have top next to them in bold. That means their edit is the most recent. Check these articles for vandalism. Not every edit they make may be vandalism, and don’t change the ones that aren’t. If the vandal is insidious, meaning they change dates and factual information so that it looks correct but is false, then it is prudent to check every article they edited recently. If any bad changes they made were not reverted, do so yourself and add back any good edits made afterwards. Watch these pages too. You can watch a vandal’s contributions to make sure they don’t move on to other articles.

[edit] Warning the Vandal

I will do this section later. In the meantime templates and an explanation on how to warn vandals politely is here: Wikipedia:Vandalism I need info on how a non-sysop such as myself reports a vandal who has made multiple bad edits.

[edit] If the Vandal Strikes Back

If the vandal remakes a bad edit or removes a tag, revert it again and warn them a second time. Don’t automatically revert the edit without looking at it. One time, a vandal followed up with a good edit and I reverted it without looking at. Belatedly I realized my error and apologized; however I may have scared off a future good user who was just experimenting. Don't make this mistake!