User talk:Jvvg/sandbox

Hello, I have a few comments about this. I have placed 4 markers (1) (2) (3) (4) on the page.

Here is what I mean:

(1)The EW deletion is very limited

(2)Anybody can move files

(3)NONE of our current admins do that often

(4)Yes, EWs were created for handling requests, but that point is in the ground now that they can do other things too. Maybe there should be a group just for creating accounts? (And this time, mean it)
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:33, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

1. EW deletion is in fact not that limited. When I was an EW, I never had a single instance where I couldn't delete a page.

2. I was just looking at Special:ListGroupRights. I'll remove that, then.

3. When only undoing one edit, I do in fact use undo instead of revert.

4. If we have too many people looking at account requests, it gets a little ridiculous. Just having EWs and admins works fine. I just included that to emphasize the importance of that privilege/duty.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 13:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know the exact criteria, but it's not unlimited. I guess you're right about the requests thing.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

And BTW, I said do that often. Occasionally they will provide a reason.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey I went to remove the markers but they were already gone. Did you get rid of them?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I even use undo for multiple edits, thanks to grouped changes.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed the markers.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Another test

Hi!

Test reply!

Test 123

Testing what happens if I insert a multiline comment

Unsigned message

Again!
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Another unsigned message

Yay!

Unsigned message

Is WM still operating?

Hopefully

Current status

Currently, there are about 24 flaws in the article. You can give or take on that number by one or two as the definition of "flaw" is a bit ambiguous. Scratchers are asked to find one-eighth of that (3), which I think is enough and I do not see a pressing need to add more (and possibly subtract one or two). One of the problems with the previous flawed article was that there were far too many flaws (and that the flaws were things such as colored text that finding them does not display an understanding of content policies or that the editor will be constructive. This is complemented by pages such as Scratch tips and tricks!).

I would like to ask that new flaws are not added to the article as of now (and I may remove one or two in the coming days). However, in keeping with S:BRD, I encourage other users to participate in this discussion if they feel otherwise. I hope to design the flawed article in a way that the number of flaws is certainly much higher than 3 but not visible at a ten-foot glance. In addition, I hope that the flaws relate to actual problems found in articles (I have removed second person from at least a dozen articles in the 75 days I have been registered), and not things such as colored text.

Please let me know if you disagree with my assessment, I am interested in creating a discussion if others see the situation differently.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 06:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

My idea of flawed articles shows the editor that they shouldn't want to use these errors in a real article. I don't see why colors should be removed.

I agree, however, that there are too many flaws and one of the main flaws I see is capitilization errors. I think we should remove some of those as well.
 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  13:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"My idea of flawed articles shows the editor that they shouldn't want to use these errors in a real article." I think this is what is happening. There are a lot of edits in violation of policies, such as attempts to use second person and such. Finding colored text does not indicate sufficient competence in editing, which is why I restricted it to flaws actually found in articles. Because there have been users who had accounts accepted then made the exact type of edits that the flawed article is supposed to stop. The most extreme example is the Scratch tips and tricks! article, but there are others as well that I will not go into. In addition, there is no use of unnecessary colored text in articles, so having it be identifiable does not serve much purpose. In addition, if you are planning for it to serve as a "lesson" for what not to do, there is no problem with people writing colored text so that does not really serve as a useful "lesson", and that might be better pointed at things that are being done that should not be, such as second person, which is what this article hopes to address. Because if such things are identified as flaws, then that is a much stronger indication of understanding of encyclopedic writing and content policies. I hope this sums up my views.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 17:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point now. But colored text was included in the initial flawed article, I realize that we're revising that article but there must've been a reason to include colored text in the first place....
 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  18:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Obvious?

Would adding an extra space between bullet points in the flawed article be too obvious, as a design & structural flaw?
84375 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Like having a bullet point, a blank line, then another bullet point?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Precisely.
84375 (talk | contribs) 01:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable flaw to include.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good! I can add it, if you haven't already.
84375 (talk | contribs) 03:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an unsigned message

This is an unsigned message and I will hopefully get notified by my own bot for this.