About: RuneScape talk:Rollback/Examples   Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

How is Price for known item altered from 5000 to 50000000. not obvious vandalism? I understand the concept behind assuming good faith, but changing the price from 5k to 50m is clearly an act of vandalism. It seems people are tying to get softer and softer on vandals, and wanting lower the consequences of vandalism, which is exactly why they come back time and time again. I refuse to click "undo" and put "typo?" in the edit summary if somebody increases the price by 49,995,000 gold. It's understandable to mess up on high priced items and add a zero in things that cost something like 120m (120000000) but this is out of hand. Karlis (talk) (contribs)

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • RuneScape talk:Rollback/Examples
rdfs:comment
  • How is Price for known item altered from 5000 to 50000000. not obvious vandalism? I understand the concept behind assuming good faith, but changing the price from 5k to 50m is clearly an act of vandalism. It seems people are tying to get softer and softer on vandals, and wanting lower the consequences of vandalism, which is exactly why they come back time and time again. I refuse to click "undo" and put "typo?" in the edit summary if somebody increases the price by 49,995,000 gold. It's understandable to mess up on high priced items and add a zero in things that cost something like 120m (120000000) but this is out of hand. Karlis (talk) (contribs)
dbkwik:rune-scape/...iPageUsesTemplate
dbkwik:runescape/p...iPageUsesTemplate
abstract
  • How is Price for known item altered from 5000 to 50000000. not obvious vandalism? I understand the concept behind assuming good faith, but changing the price from 5k to 50m is clearly an act of vandalism. It seems people are tying to get softer and softer on vandals, and wanting lower the consequences of vandalism, which is exactly why they come back time and time again. I refuse to click "undo" and put "typo?" in the edit summary if somebody increases the price by 49,995,000 gold. It's understandable to mess up on high priced items and add a zero in things that cost something like 120m (120000000) but this is out of hand. Karlis (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Consider how poor my typing skills skills are Karlis. That is the basis I go on with this. Now someone changing a price of 5000 to 49kgeo0 is not typoing to me. But it is possible to add a couple extra zeroes inadvertently. And as far as getting soft on vandals goes, I want to be sure its a vandal. When I am sure, I am all for giving blocks. But not for mistakes. Some of these people may be completely unaware that the edit they just made actually took place. If they make a second "vandalism" it takes but a moment more to fix the second and then block them. But knowing how imperfect I am shows me how I must assume others to be. Don't compare them to the slick and awesome editors, compare them to the people that try but make mistakes anyhow.--Degenret01 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I think I agree with Karlis. Adding/reducing 1 or 2 zeros accidentally is acceptable (i.e. 50000 for 5000, 490000 for 4900000, etc.) This is because the eye does not have the ability to distinguish 00000 from 000000, or 0000000 from 000000. Our brains can't count any number higher than 6 items when they are put in a row. (Try it with sticks or matches.) But increasing 5000 to 50000000 is a most probably a case of vandalism. (I would say that with 99% certainty.) We should change that particular example to something more appropriate, such as the ones I have provided. If you want, I could figure out a way so that the Exchange templates accept commas. This is significantly reduce the number of "accidental" updates. az talk 07:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC) I also agree with Karlis. I would consider adding about 5 zero's for the price to be vandalism and not test editing. If it was just 1-2 zero's off, sure I won't mind clicking undo. File:Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 13:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, we can pretend that I am the only person in the world that looks at the keys and not the monitor when they type. Yea, three or four extra is prob too many. But I personally would like to see warnings given for first offense extra zero adders. For that 1 percent that did it accidentally. I do not like punishing 100 people if only 99 are known to be guilty.--Degenret01 13:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Now that you told us what to undo, you should create examples on what to rollback on. File:Santa hat.png Powers38 おはようヾ(´･ω･｀) 10:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Alternative Linked Data Views: ODE     Raw Data in: CXML | CSV | RDF ( N-Triples N3/Turtle JSON XML ) | OData ( Atom JSON ) | Microdata ( JSON HTML) | JSON-LD    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software