User:Cheers dude/Adoption

''OK, I'm really excited to start this adoption with you. My first question is, what area(s) of Wikipedia would you like to foray into? This way, I will know what to go over. Also, to avoid confusion, all of my replies will be italicized, like this. :)''

I'm very excited too. I've never done anything like this before. Have you? You're already teaching me new things. I had to look up the word "foray". Haha! Anyways, hmmm! I don't know where to start. Oh yeah! I always have been kind of curious about something. In a lot of people's edit summaries who make lots of reversions, it always says 'Undid Reversion by so and so to last edit by so and so'. It doesn't seem like the person is writing that in their edit summary because I see it written over and over again in some user's contribution history. It seems like there's a button to quick press something. Is there?

''That's the default summary if you're undoing an edit, meaning that if you click the "undo" button, that will automatically come up as the edit summary. Of course, you're welcome to put a more specific edit summary if you choose.''

Ahhh, took me a while but I see what you're talking about. Interesting. Thank you much mentor! :D I don't like reverting people without providing a specific reason as to why so I doubt I'll use that much anyway. I was just curious how some users did that. Anyways, there's a lot of WP guidelines and rules. Everytime I see a debate on here (which having helped out on the administrative noticeboards, I've seen many), I see at least one person throw up a WP guideline and it's like there's always a different one for every situation so there must be like a thousand. So my question is: I edit a lot of television shows and wrestling articles. Can you tell me some WP guidelines that might benefit me in terms of television shows and wrestling articles? Some WP guidelines I might want to know in terms of that. Cheers!

I'd also like a neat userpage like yours or shall I say Matthew's to keep from getting into trouble with him. :D I'd love classy userpage with more than just my IP on it. :D

''Hmm. The guidelines thrown up don't have all that much to do with TV and Wrestling articles. However, if you are interested in that area, you may want to go to WP:TV or WP:PW, wikiprojects on those subjects.''

''Also, if you want a custom userpage, I would talk to iMatthew or RyanCross. Both users have done good work designing userpages for me in the past.''

Thank you Shapiro! As far as the three links you found, they look like great articles that could benefit me in my editing. I'm going to look at those in more detail as soon as I get some down time. Also, yea, I should have known to ask Matthew. Surprised he didn't pop up as soon as I asked you that question. :D Anyways, the next area I would like to foray are sources and what is and is not considered a reliable source. How should editors know what is and is not a reliable source? I already know some sources considered unreliable are sources like blogs, messageboards, but is that it? The reason I want to know about this is because I'm currently working on a project with two other editors on Real World/Road Rules Challenge: The Duel 2 (as is being discussed on the talk page of that article) and they are relying on me to help in finding reliable sources for the article. Actually, I've even found some sources but I'm not certain if they're reliable. Perhaps I could even show you what I've found so that you could tell me whether or not they are reliable or unreliable sources? Cheers!

''Hmmm. Sources isn't my best area, but I can see if I can help. I can sum up the content of WP:RS for you: a reliable source is a credible published material with a reliable printing process. As you can see, forums and messageboards don't meet this criterion. I hope this clears it up.''

''You've said you're interested in WP:PW. I can't help you there, but iMatthew and Scorpion0422 are a couple of people I know who work there.''

''I've just found out you're in a dispute via the article Smunday. A word of advice: drop it. Disputes get you nowhere, and even if you think that your idea is still much better, a compromise is a great way to end disputes. Trust me, I've been in quite a few.''

''I strongly suggest that you just drop this dispute. If you feel that your point of view differs with someone else's, please assume good faith and talk it out with them. Removing warnings is a sign that you can't solve the conflict properly.''

Hello! please do not entertain user CalendarWatcher's shenanigans. I've taken the matter to administrator who has a much better idea of what is going on. It's not an editing dispute at all. I made the one reversion to his edit several days ago (all shown here in the edit history of this article ) and because of the one reversion, the user is under the impression that this constitutes WP:Stalk and has given me a lengthy warning full of uncivil remarks on my userpage even going so far as to tell me to worry about Hulk Hogan or something to that effect. He had absolutely no right reverting my userpage after I removed the uncivil remarks. Also, It's actually the other way around. Despite his accusations of WP:Stalk, prior to the edit on Smunday, CalenderWatcher has been showing up and butting into various talkpage discussions I've had over the past, one of which Jennavecia was involved in, making uncivil remarks towards myself which is all well highlighted on Jennavecia's page. I'm guessing this is why he views the one reversion as "revenge" and "WP:Stalk" because his behavior before the fact. Again, I wouldn't bother going any further on this subject as now it's in the hands of an admin. Cheers!


 * I can see why you wouldn't want to 'go any further', considering how you neglected, in your denial of stalking, to mention this edit, this edit, this edit,, this edit, this edit, this edit and this edit--all outside your very narrow interest and linked only by their intersection with the edits of myself and JzG. This is obviously not about any content disputes, it's a petty vendetta. Enough. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)