 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Use of Huggle/warn-1 for non-vandalism
Thanks for watching out for the integrity of the encyclopedia, and for appropriately reverting an edit at Orgasm by a new user. Thanks also for taking the time to let the user know what's going on by leaving this message on their Talk page. Unfortunately, you used the wrong template, a {{ Huggle/warn-1}} (uw-vandalism1). The user edit in question involved the good faith addition of a properly formatted {{ cite web}} citation to the article, and that is rarely vandalism even if the source was poorly chosen, as it was in this case.
Maybe you didn't really think it was vandalism, but there just wasn't an appropriate template available from Huggle for use in this case, so you just went with warn-1. If that's the case, please don't do that; issuing a warn-1 sets the user one step up the ladder of increasingly strict warnings, and after a level-4 they can be blocked. So, for something that isn't vandalism, we shouldn't issue do that. There is a template available that could be used to flag the actual problem with the user's edit in this case: it's Template:uw-medrs. This template is fairly recent, so may not be on your radar, and I don't believe Huggle uses it, but perhaps it should. I'll start a discussion about that at the Huggle TP, and ping you from there for your thoughts. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi
Mathglot. After reviewing my edit I conclude I have made a mistake and should not have reverted a properly-sourced edit. I do make mistakes and I will make sure to minimize such mistakes in future. Regards,
Optakeover
(U)
(T)
(C) 04:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Optakeover; thanks for the reply. Just to be clear, I think your revert of was correct: I would also have reverted that edit. So, I agree with your original removal of that edit, which was not properly sourced. It is only in the the placement of a vandalism template at the user's TP where we maybe disagreed. Thanks again, and happy editing! Mathglot ( talk) 04:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
| This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Use of Huggle/warn-1 for non-vandalism
Thanks for watching out for the integrity of the encyclopedia, and for appropriately reverting an edit at Orgasm by a new user. Thanks also for taking the time to let the user know what's going on by leaving this message on their Talk page. Unfortunately, you used the wrong template, a {{ Huggle/warn-1}} (uw-vandalism1). The user edit in question involved the good faith addition of a properly formatted {{ cite web}} citation to the article, and that is rarely vandalism even if the source was poorly chosen, as it was in this case.
Maybe you didn't really think it was vandalism, but there just wasn't an appropriate template available from Huggle for use in this case, so you just went with warn-1. If that's the case, please don't do that; issuing a warn-1 sets the user one step up the ladder of increasingly strict warnings, and after a level-4 they can be blocked. So, for something that isn't vandalism, we shouldn't issue do that. There is a template available that could be used to flag the actual problem with the user's edit in this case: it's Template:uw-medrs. This template is fairly recent, so may not be on your radar, and I don't believe Huggle uses it, but perhaps it should. I'll start a discussion about that at the Huggle TP, and ping you from there for your thoughts. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 19:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi
Mathglot. After reviewing my edit I conclude I have made a mistake and should not have reverted a properly-sourced edit. I do make mistakes and I will make sure to minimize such mistakes in future. Regards,
Optakeover
(U)
(T)
(C) 04:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Optakeover; thanks for the reply. Just to be clear, I think your revert of was correct: I would also have reverted that edit. So, I agree with your original removal of that edit, which was not properly sourced. It is only in the the placement of a vandalism template at the user's TP where we maybe disagreed. Thanks again, and happy editing! Mathglot ( talk) 04:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)