Template talk:Cleanup

Why was my edit reverted? 128.2.206.194 21:34, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * It's been so very long since someone has rereverted an edit I've reverted. If you're going to edit a template, write a note explaining why in either the summary or here on the discussion page. Thanks. --Xasxas256 21:43, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Isn't it absolutely clear what my change does? (And if it isn't, are you sure you should be reverting willy nilly?) Template:Test and Template:If-Then are identical in behaviour, but is more standard across several MediaWiki installations. If-Then is something PanSola cooked up for obscure purposes. Unless the policy of this wiki is to assume bad faith, I see no reason to simply revert edits. 128.2.206.194 21:57, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * As you're an unknown, anon. editor, changing a much used template w/o any sort of comment in the summary, I don't find it all that shocking that people would ask what you're doing. --Rainith 22:01, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * Ask, and I will answer. Reverting is not asking. It is the least polite way to treat anyone's edits, in fact. Unless I am misreading You are valuable, unknown anons have the same clout as anyone else. 128.2.206.194 22:02, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * FYI: in the contrib history for the IP is an entry saying it's Stabber not logged in. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:03, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And yet, it got an answer, did it not? --Rainith 22:06, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * FYI, 128.2.206.194 is a Tor exit node. Don't make any assumptions about who is using it. I am not User:Stabber. 208.66.194.6 22:10, 7 June 2006 (CDT) oh, and look, the IP changed again. I am 128.2.206.194
 * It's a template ie affects numerous articles, I don't see why it's too much to ask you to explain why you've changed it. Totally unnecessary to start quoting wikipedia policy and no need to punch out an accusation that you know already is untrue (assume bad faith). There's more I could say but I don't see any reason in continuing this further, we'd be arguing over something trivial and the template looks fine. I consider this closed unless you have something new to bring up. --Xasxas256 22:12, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * You have yet to justify your initial revert with anything more than "I don't understand it, therefore it shall not stand". That is rubbish. 208.66.194.6 22:15, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * My edit summary was "I have no idea what you're trying to do here but no", ok the last two words didn't really make any grammatical sense but the point was still made that further explanation would be nice. I'm at work at the moment so I didn't get a chance to put a note on the discussion page but as I said, the point was made in the edit summary. If you want to quote policy, look at Only revert once. I don't see why you're so annoyed, I have no beef with you, the template looks fine, we've worked out why I did the revert, why the ruckus? --Xasxas256 22:20, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * And you're rude and seem to be itching for a fight. I'd suggest you settle down and relax.  Is this worth getting that worked up about?  --Rainith 22:21, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * EDIT - the above note was directed at Mr. Tor anon, not at Xasxas256. --Rainith 22:22, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * In his defence (I am in a good mood today), Tor is incredibly frustrating to use I used to use it to get around work's content filter it annoyed the heck out me! --Xasxas256 22:25, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ah, I get it. Rude and itching for a fight. First someone reverts my edit for no good reason, and then when I ask for explanation it is I who is being rude. Yes, thank you, I see the light now. 213.113.27.69 22:26, 7 June 2006 (CDT) Yes, I am the same guy as the above.


 * If only you actually did see the light. It is a widely used template with no reported problems.  You changed it with no reason given in the change summary, and no discussion in the talk page.  When questioned, your justification after the fact is that you're right, and no one has a right to question it.  That is rubbish.  Then, to top it off, you have a hissy fit and revert your own edit back to where it all started.  Grow up.  --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 22:29, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I told you I put the explanation in the edit summary, have a look at the recent changed or the history of Template:Cleanup and you'll see I wrote, "I have no idea what you're trying to do here but no". Even if I'd forgotten to leave a note in the summary we worked it out in about 5 minutes anyway, I still don't see why the you're upset. --Xasxas256 22:31, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

--Rainith 22:33, 7 June 2006 (CDT)
 * * (diff) (hist) . . ! Template:Cleanup; 19:33 . . 128.2.206.194 (Talk | block) (wth? rv!) - minorly rude
 * Isn't it absolutely clear what my change does? (And if it isn't, are you sure you should be reverting willy nilly?) - Rather holier than thou, as it has worked fine before why shouldn't it be reverted if a new edit appeared that it might be someone testing something. We get edits all the time with people testing out their ability to edit (almost) all the pages.
 * You have yet to justify your initial revert with anything more than "I don't understand it, therefore it shall not stand". That is rubbish. - getting rude again.


 * I think the anonymous user is the one in the right. Between You are valuable and Assume good faith there was no basis at all for the revert.  Xasxas didn't understand the change so could not possibly have a reasonable assumption that it was bad faith.  No one else has given a reason to assume so besides "he's anonymous" (YAV, AGF), the template is "widely used with no reported problems" (AGF), and there was "no discussion" (AGF).


 * That said, no, as far as I know isn't used like that "across MediaWiki installations."  On the WikiMedia wikis it's a template dealing with "test" edits saying to use the sandbox for tests.  Clicking around various popular wikis, it mostly doesn't exist or is used like on WikiMedia sites.  --68.142.14.91 23:00, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Yes, but the same rights granted under You are valuable to allow anyone to make changes, also explicitly grants others the right to question those changes. Also, as mentioned in Only revert once, the anon should have taken his/her argument for the change to the talk page rather than reverting the revert immediately.  Instead, after the fact, the anon is rude and chides others.  No, I do not believe that anon was in the right here. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 23:08, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I wasn't talking about the revert by the anonymous editor. YAV and AGF do not allow you to revert without a reasonable assumption of bad faith.  AGF explicitly forbids such an action as it is an assumption of bad faith.  Xasxas showed he had no such reasonable assumption by saying he didn't know what the edit meant.  --68.142.14.91 23:19, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Again, AGF goes both ways. As there was no documented problems with the template, no discussion of any needed change, and the change made with no explaination on the summary text, it was reasonable to question the validity of the change.  Once explained, it could easilly be re-implemented.  After the reversion, anon assumed bad faith by Xasxas.  AGF mentions If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith.  --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 23:27, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It is reasonable to question the change. It is not reasonable to revert it without questioning it.  "I don't know what you're doing but I'll revert you anyway" is not good faith either.  --68.142.14.91 23:29, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * Ok.
 * The template worked fine before the "edit in question"
 * The "edit in question" consisted mainly of changing words to the word test
 * Many new users, unsure how a wiki works, make edits and insert words, especially test into articles
 * The only thing that was done in the edit that was against AGF that I can see was the last 2 words added in the summary, the "but no" could be taken as "chiding." --Rainith 23:40, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * While not the best phrasing, the revert was asking why the change. At the core, this change/revert revolves around the question "if it isn't broke, why try fixing it"?  It was known that the template worked in its original form.  With no testing or explaination, it was changed with no justification or reason provided.  Reverting it to an already known working form is entirely reasonable.  The anon was rude, ignored AGF, and ignored ORO.  I still see no reason to change my opinion that anon was in the wrong here.
 * Regardless, anon has claimed to have left rather than accept a peaceable ending that had been offered. The template works in its current form.  I don't see any reason to fuss over this at this point. --- Barek (talk &bull; contribs) - 23:47, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * I may be mistaken, but had I seen an anonymous user put the words "Template:Test" into such a wide used template, I would have assumed bad faith, not good faith. In fact, I would have assumed Template:test is a test template left over from some work. I don't think it's wrong to assume bad faith when people fiddle with code through anonymous IPs. The only difference would have been that I would either investigate that template, or if I can't figure it out, I would have left a note in the talk page asking for an explanation. This is not an article in which a piece of questionable information was put, this is a template being edited. Maybe Xasxas could have been clearer on his reason for reverting or wanting more details, but anonymous needs to understand this is not "weird" or "uncalled for." If I see an anonymous user editing Template:Monster-stub and adding a line of code I cannot decipher which does nothing to the template or the articles, I WILL revert it, not keep it. This is code, not content. I do not assume good faith in people's programming skills. :) --Karlos 23:51, 7 June 2006 (CDT)


 * It is sad to see grown-up people fighting over something so trivial. :( Mr. Anonymous, you seem like a reasonable person, you're obviously not dumb and you're obviously familiar with how a wiki works, both technically and community-wise. If that is the case then you should see why someone would revert an anonymous edit that has been done without giving any explanation and involves mostly the suspicious word "test". Granted, we (the GWiki regulars and admins) are probably more trigger-happy when it comes to reverting anonymous edits, and don't look into the matter as thoroughly as we should have and would have done before reverting an edit by a registered user or even a regular. But that's just human nature. Now, give it a rest everybody, shake hands, let's move on and do something useful instead of such silly fights. -- [[Image:TurningL sml.gif|Tetris L]] 02:27, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

The cleanup tag
I suggest that we add instructions that if no reason is provided, that the tag can be removed with no action taken. I've seen the cleanup tag cause several users to get irritated / frustrated with the wiki recently. I believe the main reason is that many users simply apply the cleanup tag with no comments about what specifically is seen as needing cleaning up. While it's sometimes obvious, there are other times when it can be easy to overlook the issue that caused the tag to be applied. The editor(s) involved then need to sift through the Style and Formatting guidelines to try to find the one or two details that they missed. Personally, if I see a cleanup tag without a reason given, and I can't immediately spot the reason for the tag myself so that I can either fix the tag or fix the article, my reaction is to remove the tag. That then can irritate the person who applied it. The solution to eliminate the frustration on both sides is easy - the person applying it needs to include a reason in the talk page or in the tag itself by using the format rather than the less useful format of. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:42, 26 September 2006 (CDT)