From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] My editing
[edit] Reverting edits
Firstly, I do make mistakes. Mostly I spot them myself. If I revert edits I shouldn't have reverted I apologise in advance (see below re VandalProof). If someone sees something I've done wrong tell me, please, (as user:Slayze did on my talk page). If I disagree I'll explain why but I won't be angry. I prefer to get these things sorted out.
[edit] VandalProof
Recently I've started using this tool and I've found it quite fun as well as very useful. To be honest I don't particularly care about having my page vandalised, just be aware that the changes will be reverted very quickly and repeated vandalism will probably result in a block.
While using VP I've been able to revert a lot of vandalism much faster than before but I've also made a few mistakes. Some of them trivial, like warning myself for vandalism and labelling an article as a stub. Some more serious, involving erroneous reversion and even warning, either by not reading an edit properly or by getting there a bit too late and mistaking the person reverting for the vandal. On my discussion page there are currently three users pointing out (or claiming to point out) mistakes in my reverting. One is a blatant vandal who made a few possibly admissible edits to a page he was vandalising only minutes before to cover himself. The other two are perfectly genuine. I have learnt that I need to be a lot more careful and I shall try to be in future.
[edit] Anonymous users
Mostly when I look for vandalism, I look at the changes made by anonymous users. It's an unfortunate truth that it's this section of the Wikipedia community that's responsible for the vast majority of vandalism. However, apart from blatant vandals, I've not noticed much difference between the standard of editing of those with accounts and that of those without. For a long time before getting a username I would edit anonymously and I found it difficult; people assume that what is being written is of a lower quality and that even if there are facts that might be included contained in the anonymous user's contribution, everything must at least be rewritten. Anonymous users generally make good contributions. There's no need to assume anything or to give them too much encouragement to register when they may not want to.
[edit] Stylistic things
- My spelling, particularly when typing, is extremely bad. However many times I check my work, if I've written more than a few paragraphs I will generally leave behind spelling errors. Feel free, by the way, to correct any you find here - I would be very grateful. Although I don't mind correcting the odd spelling mistake made by other people, and I'm better at spotting others' spelling mistakes than my own, there seems to be a growing tendency among a minority of people to assume that spelling and grammar mistakes don't matter and I think it's a shame. I really wish people would proof-read what they write.
- One thing I see a lot on Wikipedia is the overuse of speech marks and quotes. Normally these should be used to quote things and for nothing else. Foreign phrases can go in Italics. Quotes are not a way of casting doubt on the veracity of what is written. In the following phrase I recently reverted:
-
- the "prophet" Mormon
- quotes are being used to undermine a particular teaching without specifically saying what is wrong with it. This is not an appropriate use.
- At other times, quotes might be used by people who can't find the (here's an example) "right" word for what they're trying to saying to say or who doubt their own use of a word. If there's a problem with the word it shouldn't be used. Otherwise the quotes can be taken out without impairing the sense of what is being said.
- The 1700s, the 1800s and the 1900s are all decades. The eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries are... centuries. The use of the term "1800s" to refer to the whole of the nineteenth century is incorrect and I wish more people would pay attention to this on Wikipedia.
