Jump to content

User talk:Tomato 33/Adoption

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I hope its fine with you if I move the adoption stuff here. This is reversible, just revert my changes on the main talk page and nom this page for speedy deletion under CSD U1. --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi! I'm Lixxx235, and I saw you were looking for someone to adopt you in adopt-a-user. I registered a Wikipedia account in 2010 and am a rollbacker and reviewer on the English Wikipedia. If you are still interested in being adopted, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. I mostly do anti-vandalism, but I can provide guidance in other areas as needed. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of adoption do you want?

Hi, Tomato! This adoption will be a learning experience for both of us- I've never adopted anyone before. The biggest question for you would be: do you want a highly structured, organized, standardized "school style" adoption, like so, or do you want a more open ended relaxed style? Let me know what you think. Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either way: 1. Please install WP:TWINKLE. 2. Read WP:EYNTK, and, depending on which option you pick, I will then give you a quiz over it. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Well, I guess just go with what you want, I'll just learn...and stuff ;). I'm about to install and read the thingies! If u have time and want a laugh, look at the policies in uncyclopedia,uncyclopedia:HTBFANJS :) Have a nice day :) Tomato 33 (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question! What is the difference between "No original research" and "Verifiability" ? They seem to say that u just need a source that is reliable. Which is very similar to notability. Tomato 33 (talk) 11:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finished my homework ;) Ready for the quiz ;) Tomato 33 (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing about verifiability is that a source must be able to be checked by anyone reading, and NOR needs to establish citations for every statement in the article, while notability mist demonstrate a subject is notable by significant independent coverage. Some examples of how one thing can pass two of them but fail one:
  1. If an article's subject got significant news coverage and the news coverage was in an article checkable by anyone, but it doesn't source a particular statement in an article, it passes V and NOTABLE but not NOR.
  2. If an article had footnotes after every disputable statement, and got significant secondary coverage, but some or all of the footnotes were no longer valid, it would pass NOTABLE and NOR but not V.
  3. If an article has every statement sourced and able to be checked, but it hadn't gotten significant independent coverage, it would pass NOR and V but not NOTABLE.

I hope that made sense- I'm not a very good explainer. --Lixxx235 (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It did make sense! Thanks for explaining, maybe you could add it to the official explanation page thing. Maybe you could give me an assignment? Something to do with these 3 problems? Tomato 33 (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's something: find 1 article/diff that passes V and NOTABLE but not NOR, one that passes NOTABLE and NOR but not V, etc. Put the links to them in a list below, then leave me a talkback. Sorry for the weird timing of my replies, I've been stuck in meetings for the day. Thanks! --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assignment: find articles with non-verifiable sources, non-notable articles, or articles with original research.

My findings so far:

  • [[1]] Passes neither V, NOTABLE or NOR. (no sources, thus no coverage, and maybe it would pass V, as its (non existent) footnotes are not out of date :P ) but that's just semantics.
  • [[2]] same story
  • [[3]] 2 sources have problems here, as this one source seems like an events page, or user submitted. And this one link is not even available. The first link would then have to be removed because it passes NOR and V but not NOTABLE. The second link is out of date, and thus it would pass NOTABLE and NOR but not V.
  • AHAAA maybe I got a good one here. [[4]]. The has lots of references, but all from the Wizards of the Coast website. Let's say that website would be a completely user made website then this article would pass NOR and V but not NOTABLE.  Done

This is harder than you would think it is :). In what way would you tackle this assignment? Currently I'm just looking at this list. Tomato 33 (talk) 15:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, new page patrolling is the best way to do it, in my opinion. If I were assigned this, I would ask me to get another assignment I could do in the meantime, as long as you are going to be new page patrolling anyways. Yeah, that's my advice. Another assignment you will do in the future anyways is this:

Go to WP:CSD. Go to Twinkle preferences and enable logging of CSD and PRODs. Then, if you see any articles qualifying for SD or PROD, tag them and link the log here. You should have 3 deleted speedy deletions and one deleted PROD. This can be done at the same time as looking for badly referenced articles. --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked out this article Dominik_Scherrer, but found that it was wrongly referenced, it only has external references which do confirm the information in the article. What kind of cleanup does it need, or what is it called?  Done

And, thanks for the quick reply, I'm on it!Tomato 33 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For that one, you should access the twinkle menu and click "tag". Then, check the applicable ones(it's a scrolling list), which, for that article, should be linkrot and no footnotes. --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe "unreliable sources" as well. --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will be off for a bit, feel free to ping me though and I will probably get to you within a half hour. 2/3 of the identify bad sources assignment done, congrats! --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
️Looking through your contrib history you are clearly proficient at this. You pass! Yay! Lixxx235 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources checkY
Congratulations on completing the Reliable sources module of your adoption school.

Assignment: successfully and accurately tag 3 pages for speedy deletion and one for PROD

Successfully, as in the page gets deleted.
CSD log: Prod log: checkY Waived logs as saw user contrib history, passed with honors --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion checkY
Congratulations on completing the Deletion module of your adoption school.

Assignment: read WP:VANDALISM, WP:AGF and WP:RCP, then find and revert 5 vandalism edits and 5 good faith but unhelpful edits, and warn the editor

Vandalism:

  1. in dubio: not sure what i should do. You should revert the edits for not having a reliable source. Upon checking any source given, that is. Lixxx235 (talk) 13:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's got a translate tag now :) Tomato 33 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. blanking is vandalism ☒Nbut the user didn't actually blank anything but his/her own edit.
  2. User_talk:217.158.253.6 ☒N this wasn't vandalism, this was a WP:AGF situation
  3. User_talk:202.164.55.185  Good
  4. User_talk:101.103.129.57  Good
  5. User_talk:152.226.6.204  Good
  6. new https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Aisin-Gioro&diff=610360372&oldid=610359653 Sketchy, but  ok
  7. new https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Bangladesh&action=history Good
  8. new https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Northern_mockingbird&action=history Should be good faith edit revert, but good enough

AGF revert:

  1. User_talk:108.85.106.251  Good, could also have been classified as test, if you wanted
  2. User_talk:212.135.65.247 ☒N The anon. editor is right, the links shouldn't have gone all to the same article
  3. User_talk:87.223.150.238#Welcome ☒N I didn't see that you reverted this one
  4. User_talk:39.53.61.6  Good, just make sure that you're the person reverting if you warn the editor, as other editors might have reasons they didn't provide a warning.
  5. User_talk:220.239.177.37  Good, I saw this user was making personal attacks and nomed some pages for speedy deletion
  6. new https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Jon_Brower_Minnoch&action=history Good
  7. new https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lee_Newton&action=history


new THIS seems like a spam attack, with mixed AGF and vandalism. I'm reverting it back to the start, and ill message both users.


 Not donePlease put the diffs here, it's hard for me to go into each one. Sorry. Lixxx235 (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Quick note: the welcome-anon-unconstructive template really should only be used when it is blatant vandalism, and seldom even then, as it does not count as a warning. Try to use the more informative uw-series of warning templates instead- they're much more detailed. Thanks! Lixxx235 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should be about 40% of the adoption! unless you want more than that. Lixxx235 (talk) 15:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Tomato, I might be unresponsive for a while- stressful day today. It might be a while before I get around to grading these. Lixxx235 (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomato_33/Adoption&oldid=610444038"