Difference between revisions of "SandBox1"

From HPSDRwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(maybe finished)
(+cat)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Tentative disclaimer page ==
+
''The below information stolen directly from Wikipedia --- Please ignore the relinks, they are because we are not on Wikipedia''
  
The HPSDR project generally works under the two license structures. The [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html GPL] for software or the TAPR [http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html OHL] and [http://www.tapr.org/NCL NCL] for hardware.
+
'''Undo''' or '''Reverting''' means returning an article to an earlier version. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of others.
  
You should check the license details if unsure. Software distrubutions often have file named 'Copying' with the license inside; hardware will have license details with the documentation or sometimes printed on the product.
+
Revert vandalism on sight, but [[#When to revert|revert a good faith edit only as a last resort]]. Edit warring is prohibited. ''See'' {{selfref|[[Wikipedia:three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]|inline}}. Editors should [[#Explain reverts|provide an explanation when reverting]].
  
The disclaimer from the GPL:
+
==When to revert==
<blockquote>"15. Disclaimer of Warranty.</blockquote><blockquote>THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION</blockquote><blockquote>16. Limitation of Liability.</blockquote><blockquote>IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES."</blockquote>
+
{{selfref|For further information, see: [[Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary|Revert only when necessary]]}}
The disclaimer from the OHL and NCL:
+
Revert [[wp:vandalism|vandalism]] and other abusive edits upon sight but '''revert a good faith edit only as a last resort'''. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," [[wp:bite|discourage other editors]], and spark an [[Wikipedia:edit war|edit war]]. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - ''reword rather than revert''. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit - ''[[Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit|don't throw the baby out with the bathwater]]''.
<blockquote>"7.1  THE DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS-IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND TITLE, ARE HEREBY EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.</blockquote><blockquote>7.2  IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW WILL ANY LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF, OR INABILITY TO USE, THE DOCUMENTATION OR PRODUCTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CLAIMS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INFRINGEMENT OR LOSS OF DATA, EVEN IF THAT PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
+
 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.</blockquote><blockquote>7.3  You agree that the foregoing limitations are reasonable due to the non-financial nature of the transaction represented by this Agreement, and acknowledge that were it not for these limitations, the Licensor(s) would not be willing to make the Documentation available to you.</blockquote><blockquote>7.4 You agree to defend, indemnify, and hold each Licensor harmless from any claim brought by a third party alleging any defect in the design, manufacture, or operation of any Product which you make, have made, or distribute pursuant to this Agreement."</blockquote>
+
{{anchors|STATUSQUO}}{{shortcut|WP:STATUSQUO}}''Don't revert to undo a good faith reversion of your change.'' If there is a dispute, the [[status quo]] reigns until a [[WP:CONSENSUS|consensus]] is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an [[#Revert wars are considered harmful|edit war]], propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution alternatives]].
 +
 
 +
=== Amanda is a jerk ===
 +
 
 +
If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate then first propose the reversion on the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page|talk page]]. If there is reason to believe that the author of problematic material will not be induced to change it, editors sometimes choose to transfer the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely.
 +
 
 +
==Explain reverts==
 +
{{shortcut|WP:REVEXP}}
 +
It is particularly important to provide a [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions|valid]] and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to [[wp:assume good faith|assume good faith]]. This is one of the most common causes of an [[wp:edit war|edit war]]. A substantive explanation also promotes [[wp:consensus|consensus]] by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the identified problem. The result will be an improved article and a more knowledgeable editor.
 +
 
 +
In addition to helping the reverted editor, providing information regarding the reversion will help other editors by letting them know whether - or not - they need to even view the reverted version, such as in the case of [[Wikipedia:blanking a page|blanking a page]]. Explaining reverts also helps users who check edit histories to determine the extent to which the information in the article is reliable or current.
 +
 
 +
If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an [[Wikipedia:edit summary|edit summary]], leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page ''first'' and ''then'' revert, rather than the other way around; thus giving the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.
 +
 
 +
==How to revert==
 +
===Manual method===
 +
* Go to the top of the page in question, click on the "[[Help:Page history|history]]" or "page history" (in some skins) tab; then, click on the "[[Help:Calendar|time and date]]" of the earlier version, to which you wish to revert.
 +
* When that page displays, you will see a phrase similar to: "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ***.*.***.*** (Talk) at 15:47, January 24, 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision."
 +
* Verify that you have selected the correct "old revision" version and click on the "[[Help:Editing|edit this page]]" tab, as you would normally do.  
 +
** '''Important:''' in the case of vandalism, take the time to make sure that you are reverting to the last version without the vandalism; there may be multiple consecutive vandal edits or they may be interspersed between the constructive edits.
 +
* Above the edit box, you will see a warning similar to: "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed."
 +
* Ignore this warning and save the page. Be sure to add the word "revert" or the abbreviation "rv" and a brief explanation for the revert to the "[[Wikipedia:edit summary|edit summary]]". It is possible to wikilink the usernames, associated with the versions that you are reverting from and to.
 +
** For example, when reverting vandalism by a user identified only by their [[IP address]], an edit summary would be: <br><br>'''<code><nowiki>rv edits by [[Special:Contributions/<IP address>|<IP address>]] to last version by [[User:Example|Example]]</nowiki></code>'''<br><br>
 +
** When the [[Wikipedia:Username policy|username]] is known, an edit summary would be: <br><br>'''<code><nowiki>rv edits by [[User:<username>|<username>]] to last version by [[User:Example|Example]]</nowiki></code>'''<br><br>
 +
:''Note: when reverting blatant vandalism, "rvv" normally suffices, as speed is more important than a full edit summary with usernames or IP addresses''.
 +
* Click on the "history" tab again. A new line will have been added and you will be able to verify (by clicking on "last"), that you undid the vandalism, plus all subsequent bona fide edits, if any. It is courteous to redo all the constructive edits that were undone, along with the edit(s) which you intended to revert. This should always be done, where it is reasonably possible.   
 +
* In a vandalism case, where sections of text were simply deleted and then, subsequent edits were made by others, it may be easier for you to cut and paste those missing sections of text back in, than to revert and then, re-do the edits.
 +
* Check the contribution history of the user, who vandalized the article. (Click on the IP address for anonymous users or the "contribs" for registered users.) If this user is vandalizing many articles, please report them to [[Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism|administrator intervention against vandalism]] at Wikipedia or to the relevant administrators' noticeboard on other projects.
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Wiki editing]]

Latest revision as of 11:58, 25 January 2010

The below information stolen directly from Wikipedia --- Please ignore the relinks, they are because we are not on Wikipedia

Undo or Reverting means returning an article to an earlier version. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of others.

Revert vandalism on sight, but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. Edit warring is prohibited. See Template:Selfref. Editors should provide an explanation when reverting.

When to revert

Template:Selfref Revert vandalism and other abusive edits upon sight but revert a good faith edit only as a last resort. A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible - reword rather than revert. Similarly, if only part of an edit is problematic then consider modifying only that part instead of reverting the whole edit - don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Template:AnchorsTemplate:ShortcutDon't revert to undo a good faith reversion of your change. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives.

Amanda is a jerk

If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate then first propose the reversion on the article's talk page. If there is reason to believe that the author of problematic material will not be induced to change it, editors sometimes choose to transfer the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely.

Explain reverts

Template:Shortcut It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith. This is one of the most common causes of an edit war. A substantive explanation also promotes consensus by alerting the reverted editor to the problem with the original edit. The reverted editor may then be able to revise the edit to correct the identified problem. The result will be an improved article and a more knowledgeable editor.

In addition to helping the reverted editor, providing information regarding the reversion will help other editors by letting them know whether - or not - they need to even view the reverted version, such as in the case of blanking a page. Explaining reverts also helps users who check edit histories to determine the extent to which the information in the article is reliable or current.

If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around; thus giving the other editor a chance to agree with you and revise their edit appropriately. Conversely, if another editor reverts your change without any apparent explanation, you may wish to wait a few minutes to see if they explain their actions on the article's or your user's talk page.

How to revert

Manual method

  • Go to the top of the page in question, click on the "history" or "page history" (in some skins) tab; then, click on the "time and date" of the earlier version, to which you wish to revert.
  • When that page displays, you will see a phrase similar to: "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ***.*.***.*** (Talk) at 15:47, January 24, 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision."
  • Verify that you have selected the correct "old revision" version and click on the "edit this page" tab, as you would normally do.
    • Important: in the case of vandalism, take the time to make sure that you are reverting to the last version without the vandalism; there may be multiple consecutive vandal edits or they may be interspersed between the constructive edits.
  • Above the edit box, you will see a warning similar to: "You are editing an old revision of this page. If you save it, any changes made since then will be removed."
  • Ignore this warning and save the page. Be sure to add the word "revert" or the abbreviation "rv" and a brief explanation for the revert to the "edit summary". It is possible to wikilink the usernames, associated with the versions that you are reverting from and to.
    • For example, when reverting vandalism by a user identified only by their IP address, an edit summary would be:

      rv edits by [[Special:Contributions/<IP address>|<IP address>]] to last version by [[User:Example|Example]]

    • When the username is known, an edit summary would be:

      rv edits by [[User:<username>|<username>]] to last version by [[User:Example|Example]]

Note: when reverting blatant vandalism, "rvv" normally suffices, as speed is more important than a full edit summary with usernames or IP addresses.
  • Click on the "history" tab again. A new line will have been added and you will be able to verify (by clicking on "last"), that you undid the vandalism, plus all subsequent bona fide edits, if any. It is courteous to redo all the constructive edits that were undone, along with the edit(s) which you intended to revert. This should always be done, where it is reasonably possible.
  • In a vandalism case, where sections of text were simply deleted and then, subsequent edits were made by others, it may be easier for you to cut and paste those missing sections of text back in, than to revert and then, re-do the edits.
  • Check the contribution history of the user, who vandalized the article. (Click on the IP address for anonymous users or the "contribs" for registered users.) If this user is vandalizing many articles, please report them to administrator intervention against vandalism at Wikipedia or to the relevant administrators' noticeboard on other projects.