User:MrScorch6200/Adoption HQ

= Intro to the HQ = This page is for MrScorch6200 and his adoptees. This is a place where we can learn, collaborate, test edit, and do other fun things.

What is the Adopt-a-User program?
Basically, the Adopt-a-User program is a program where a "Mentor" adopts an "Apprentice". The Mentor helps the Apprentice learn the ways of the 'pedia until they become a WikiMaster.

How long will I be here for?
You can be in the Adopt-a-User program for as long as you like; if you feel that you are a WikiMaster and no longer need me to mentor you now, you may leave.

= Adoptee's Corner =



Small description of what you would like to do here (as in Wikipedia)
Add & amplify information as I notice gaps, errors or confusing phraseology. Remove POV where I notice it. Do housekeeping tasks e.g. small edits & disambiguation as I have the time. I am a member of Project Football though I despair of doing anything much with it.

Questions
'Are there any questions that you would like me to answer? If so, please ask here!'

Tasks you can do
One thing that you can do is check the to-do list that I have created (under "Resources").



Small description of what you would like to do here (as in Wikipedia)
I am part of Wikiproject Amusement Parks.

Questions
'Are there any questions that you would like me to answer? If so, please ask here!'

Q: If two editors are engaged in edit warring over a certain topic, should it be removed entirely until a consensus is formed?

Regarding the three-revert rule, unless you're adding something, would any other edit count as a revert as some other editor put that information on the page? Also, one of the five pillars of Wikipedia says that you can break the rules if they prevent you from helping the encyclopedia. Does that mean I could ignore the three revert rule, as I'm trying to help the page than do harm to it?Wackyike (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A: Generally, editors disengage from edit warring on a single topic until a consensus/compromise is formed on a talk page or some form of Dispute Resolution (primarily at DRN).

The only way to violate the 3RR is if you revert or partially revert the same or different addition of content in a 24hr period. If you were doing something else other than reverting any addition, it would not count towards the 3RR. Generally, the 3RR should not be broken unless you are reverting something such or vandalism or libelous material. Don't ever violate the 3RR unless you are reverting content such as vandalism or a BLP violation. Please use a form of dispute resolution instead of edit warring. It is a minor policy, but it is the most violated! Please see the exemptions here. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean when answering about the edit warring and the 3RR. Also, do you have to cite common knowledge in BLP's?Wackyike (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, here it is simplified: the 3RR is violated when reverting any edit (unless it is clear vandalism or other issue) on the same page more than three times in 24hrs. Quoted from the 3RR page: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". I don't know what you mean by "citing common knowledge in BLPs". --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, common knowledge must be sourced. See this. An encyclopedia must never assume prior knowledge i.e. Barack Obama is the President of the United States; a reader from say the Republic of Congo may not know that. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Q: Is there a notability noticeboard?Wackyike (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A: We used to have one, but it is now inactive (three months ago). It is located here if you were wondering. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Q: How do I know if recently deceased people are still covered by Wikipedia's BLP policy?Wackyike (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A: There is usually a tag at the top, but please see here. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Q: I know that during dispute resolutions, one may ask for a third opinion. However, someone could argue that he/she is a meatpuppet. How does Wikipedia go about determining whether someone is really a meatpuppet or simply trying to get a consensus if they can't with another editor?Wackyike (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I really don't understand this talk page stalker stuff. Is it against the rules or what?Wackyike (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A: There's no definitive answer for identifying a meatpuppet. You have to look for the usual signs - it is a new account, redundant wording, same types of mistakes and so on. I would be wary if any new account was 'helping' at Third Opinions. If a new editor is helping at Third Opinions (and you are requesting a 3O) don't listen to them. Just go to DRN. I really don't see Third Opinion disputes as much as disputes at DRN, which is of course, moderated by trusted users like myself.

Talk Page Stalkers are friendly users that respond to queries on others' talk pages. Say an editor asked me "why did you delete my article?" Another user, the Talk Page Stalker, would answer on my talk before I could. It is not against policy and is considered humorous. Sometimes they will identify themselves with " (Talk Page Stalker) " in small font before their post. Here is the article/guideline on TPS. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Q: What does the phrase "false positive" mean on Wikipedia?Wackyike (talk) 23:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A: That means that a bot removes something that it shouldn't have. Such as removing "vandalism" that seemed like vandalism to it but really isn't. I'm sure you've seen Cluebot around! --MrScorch6200 (t c) 23:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Q: If someone removes info on a BLP, claiming it wasn't sourced properly, but the person who put it on there disagrees, what happens? Does it get moved to the talk page?Wackyike (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A: Usually a discussion will take place on the talk page to try to resolve the issue (the editors usually stop reverting or move the disputed content on the talk). If nothing can be solved there, the next step is 3O or DRN (or another appropriate noticeboard like RSN. Many cases are solved at DRN. If not, higher dispute resolution would be used like an WP:RfC or even the MedCom. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Q: Does Wikipedia ever experience technical difficulties causing information to be incorrect?Wackyike (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

A: I haven't ever seen technical difficulties, although I'm sure some minor and isolated incidents have occurred. If you haven't noticed before, you can't edit for a short amount of time while WikiMedia updates Wikipedia. That happened recently also. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Q: But I thought the BLP policy was to not take it to the talk page. Also, I don't understand the difference between disruptive editing and vandalism.Wackyike (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A: It doesn't specifically say to not take it to the talk page (plus there are different situations) but my answer was for more general issues. Disruptive editing isn't deliberate vandalism. Disruptive editing is usually through good faith unlike vandalism. Disruptive editing is like removing something en masse without consensus. You also can be blocked for being disruptive. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 21:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Q: Do you think I should nominate maXair for deletion? No third party sources are cited.Wackyike (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A: Seeing that the ride is notable and still has a reference, it is better to quickly find a good source and place it somewhere. I placed a "primary references" maintenance tag as it still has a (primary) reference. Sometimes primary references are better than secondary, but using secondaries is always safer. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 03:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Q: I will stay in the adoption. What do the grey and orange locks represent in page protections?Wackyike (talk) 21:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A: An orange lock is a Level-II Pending Changes Protection and dark grey is semi-protected (white or somewhat light gray is Level-I Pending Changes Protection). Check more out here. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 22:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Q: How do you put a grey lock at the top of a page that is semi-protected?Wackyike (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A: Are you talking about this? The template is. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 04:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I need the one that would be best for Joseph Kony. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wackyike (talk • contribs)
 * You need to Request page protection. An admin will take care of it for you. Just placing the image there doesn't actually do anything. MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 19:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I already did so. It is semi-protected, but the image isn't there.Wackyike (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I added it. MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 19:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Q: What is the autoreviewer right?Wackyike (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A: The autoreviewer right was renamed to the autopatrolled right. It allows a trusted page creator to create pages without them being listed in Special:NewPagesFeed for an initial review. It is usually granted when a user in good-standing has created a fair amount of articles that wouldn't need to pass through SNPF and be checked for the major types of issues: possible CSDs, copyright vios etc,. You can see more here. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 21:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Q: How come the pie charts on users' edit count pages have disappeared?Wackyike (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A: I believe that they are working to incorporate more features on it, but am not entirely sure. I'm guessing it'll be back up in a little while, plus, they still have the color code for it up. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 00:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Q How do I know whether to mark an edit as minor?Wackyike (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

A: Edits should only be marked as minor when they are uncontroversial, i.e. a spelling change, formatting, removing vandalism, etc. There is a list here of what not and what not to mark as minor. Also see that page for additional information. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 14:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Q: I noticed in this article that you may only make one revert per 24 hours. Does that mean if I were to revert more than one BLP issue or vandalism case per 24 hours in these articles I would still be blocked just by trying to help the article(per WP:IAR)?

A: You could revert clear vandalism all you want (per IAR and such), but for this case I suggest to bring all other issue to the talk page. For BLP issues, I can't really say in this case. I don't know how strict admins usually are when it comes to 1RR and IAR together. To stay safe, just abide by 1RR unless there is obvious vandalism. Also, 1RR is different from 3RR because it pertains to all of your reverts for that 24-hr period, not just a case-by-case basis like 3RR. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 00:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Q: Should I nominate Station (roller coaster) for deletion?Wackyike (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A: Sorry for the late reply. If you have the policies to support a deletion (I see that the page has no references, WP:GNG would be good criteria for deletion) then head on over to WP:AfD. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 02:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, you should consider trying to find some sources for that page and save it from deletion. MrScorch6200  (talk &#124; ctrb) 02:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Q: What do I need to do to become a new page patroller? Also, should Station (roller coaster) be salted as it was deleted?Wackyike (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

A: Really, you do not need anything. Just have a good understanding of CSD policies etc and review pages. I am an avid NP patroller, so if you have any further questions, please ask. Also, the AfD should be your decision, but I would nominate it per WP:GNG. MrScorch6200 (talk &#124; ctrb) 00:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Tasks you can do
One thing that you can do is check the to-do list that I have created (under "Resources").

Seeing your questions about policies, I also suggest you check out some of the policies listed below.

Collaboration
Here is where you can collaborate with each other and I. Ask questions like "is the page I created up to policy?" and "can you guys help me with [x]?".

= Resources =

Helpful links
Listed here are the major policies of Wikipedia. There are many, many other minor policies and guidelines also, so if you want to know about a specific policy, please ask.

General

 * 1) User Talk Messages
 * 2) Welcome Messages
 * 3) Template Messages
 * Help Desk Templates
 * 1) Your First Article

Policies

 * 1) List of policies
 * 2) Reliable Sources
 * 3) Verifiability
 * 4) Original Research
 * 5) Notability
 * 6) Biographical Inclusion Guidelines
 * 7) Organizations and Companies Inclusion Guidelines
 * 8) Website Inclusion Guidelines
 * 9) Edit Warring
 * 10) Spam
 * 11) Biographies of living persons
 * 12) Removal of material
 * 13) Categorization of living people

Administrator Info

 * 1) General Policy
 * 2) Three Revert Rule Notice Board
 * 3) Vandalism Notice Board
 * 4) Username Notice Board
 * 5) Biographies of Living Persons Notice Board
 * 6) Request for Page Protection
 * 7) Sockpuppet investigation instructions

Deletion

 * 1) Speedy Delete
 * 2) Proposed Deletion
 * 3) Articles for Deletion

Essays

 * 1) Ten Commandments of Speedy Deletion
 * 2) Memes

Categories to review

 * Category:All article disambiguation pages
 * Category:Candidates for speedy deletion
 * Category:Proposed deletion
 * Category:Requests to move a userspace draft