User:Widefox/Why I revert vandalism

Were you about to ask me why I reverted your edit? This page can help you faster than I can reply to your message.

The official Wikipedia policy defines "vandalism" as:

“ Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ”

This policy is intentionally vague to enable vandal-fighters to deal with any non-constructive edits they find.

My Vandalism "criteria"

Following is an non-exclusive, open-ended list of things that I regard to be non-constructive and revert as such. If your edit fulfills any of the criteria below, that is why I would have reverted it.

Note: "edit" refers to changes (etc) in both the body of text and the edit summary.

General

G1. Anything listed on Wikipedia:Vandalism as a common type of vandalism. G2. Any edit summary that lies (that is, for example, saying you corrected a typo when you actually deleted half of the article). This type of edit may have resulted in you being given two warnings for the same edit.

Multiple

M1. A number of edits in a row, where at least one of them is obviously vandalism.

Formatting

F1. Any edit to an article that consists of mostly or ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.

F2. Any edit that consists solely of text generated by clicking on the buttons above the editing window. For example: '''Bold text''', [[Link title]], ''Italic text'', <nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here</nowiki>, <!-- Comment -->, [[Image:Example.jpg]], <small>Small text</small>, <sub>Subscript text</sub>, <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> and so forth.

F3. Almost any edit at all that includes text generated by clicking on the buttons above the editing window. Note: If it is obvious that the inclusion of the default text was an error, I may simply remove it instead of reverting.

Content

C1. Any edit that contains swear words.

C2. Any edit that compares someone or something to genitilia.

C3. Any edit that says "xxxxx is gay" or anything of that sort.

C4. Any edit that includes a broad generalization or superlative (eg "xxxxx is the best/worst/most incompetent").

C5. Any edit that uses the term boasts in the sense of ("xxxxx boasts a great selection of yyyyy")

C6. Any edit that personally attacks someone or something or which does not assume good faith with another user.

C7. Any edit that includes a non-notable person (eg on the article January 1 births "Alice’s boyfriend Bob").

C8. Any edit, not on a talk page, which apologizes for vandalizing. If you are really sorry, please, just stop.

C9. Any edit that adds defamatory or questionable content to a page without including a citation.

C10. Any edit that adds an external link which contravenes Wikipedia:External links#AVOID after being warned. (see #S2)

C11. Any edit that is rumor or speculation. If rumor has it, Wikipedia doesn't want it.

C12. Any edit that uses variants of the words below (or any others I haven't come across yet) as a direct object, an adjective, or an adverb: Note: anyone who actually is a "legend" (etc) will be able to back it up. Provide a citation to a reliable source or be reverted. "Legend", "Lad", "Rocks"

My Non-vandalism "criteria"

Also note, there are also many types of edits which are not vandalism but which I would have reverted, with a different reason; Wikipedia:Not Vandalism provides more information, as will have my edit summary and the warning I left on your talk page (if I did). Note that after being warned, these same edits may be considered vandalism and treated as such above.

General

N1. Anything listed on Wikipedia:Not Vandalism as a common type of non-vandalism.

SPAM

S1. Anything listed on Wikipedia:SPAM as a common type of spam.

S2. Any edit that adds a spam/promotional/WP:COI external link Wikipedia:LINKSPAM. (see #C10)

S3. Any edit that adds an spam/promotional/WP:COI reference link Wikipedia:REFSPAM.

Test

T1. Anything that is a test edit, instead use Wikipedia:TEST.

Self-revert

R1. Anything self-reverted may get a message, see Wikipedia:Introduction. (see #T1)

Mistakes happen

If you feel your edit doesn't fall into these criteria then there's a chance I may have made a mistake in reverting.

Please leave me a message on my talk page and I will look into it. Bear in mind that you will get a much better response from most editors if you are kind and courteous that certainly is the case for me.

I will not respond to threatening, abusive or disruptive messages so don't bother, they will just be deleted and reported. If you are a new editor, then my tip is add comments at the bottom of talk pages and sign them.

I will not respond to my pleading that it was not you, due to someone else using your computer/account/hat. Even if you did lend this out, it is your responsibility

You must also understand that I edit with neutrality. I do not care what your particular viewpoint and probably have no interest in the subject of the page being edited, so before you accuse me of being an "*ist" or of some kind of "ism" or accuse me of having a particular viewpoint or bias, I won't take you as seriously. I do not care who you are or where you come from, or the topic of the article, if I feel an edit is non constructive, I will revert.

I shamelessly stole, and changed, this from User:Marechal Ney/Why I revert vandalism who was in the process of stealing it from User:I dream of horses, who "shamelessly stole" from User:Fraggle81, who "shamelessly stole" from Callanecc who "shamelessly stole" it from Dougweller, who "shamelessly stole" it from J.delanoy".