User talk:Tomato 33/Adoption

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)

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)

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) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Finished my homework ;) Ready for the quiz ;) Tomato 33 (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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:

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

Assignment: find articles with non-verifiable sources, non-notable articles, or articles with original research.
My findings so far:
 * [] 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.
 * [] same story
 * [] 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. []. 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. ✅

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)


 * 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)
 * 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? ✅

And, thanks for the quick reply, I'm on it!Tomato 33 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * And maybe "unreliable sources" as well. --Lixxx235 (talk) 15:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * ️Looking through your contrib history you are clearly proficient at this. You pass! Yay! Lixxx235 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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: ✅ Waived logs as saw user contrib history, passed with honors --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * It's got a translate tag now :) Tomato 33 (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

AGF revert:
 * 1) blanking is vandalism  but the user didn't actually blank anything but his/her own edit.
 * 2) User_talk:217.158.253.6  this wasn't vandalism, this was a WP:AGF situation
 * 3) User_talk:202.164.55.185 ✅
 * 4) User_talk:101.103.129.57 ✅
 * 5) User_talk:152.226.6.204 ✅
 * 6) new https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ariel_Aisin-Gioro&diff=610360372&oldid=610359653 Sketchy, but ✅
 * 7) new https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Religion_in_Bangladesh&action=history✅
 * 8) new https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_mockingbird&action=history✅, but good enough
 * 1) User_talk:108.85.106.251 ✅, could also have been classified as test, if you wanted
 * 2) User_talk:212.135.65.247  The anon. editor is right, the links shouldn't have gone all to the same article
 * 3) User_talk:87.223.150.238 I didn't see that you reverted this one
 * 4) User_talk:39.53.61.6 ✅, 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 ✅, I saw this user was making personal attacks and nomed some pages for speedy deletion
 * 6) new https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jon_Brower_Minnoch&action=history✅
 * 7) new https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Newton&action=history Sketchy, but ✅.

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.

❌Please 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)

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

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) ✅, good job. --Lixxx235 (talk) 04:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I see you've started using Twinkle a lot. Good! Waaaaay better than undo and leaving warnings by hand. --Lixxx235 (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Assignment: study about article cleanup and get started
Note: I stole all this from Yunshui. Lixxx235 (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The Random article button (located in your left-hand sidebar menu) is very useful for locating articles that are in need of improvement (although I find that 90% of the time you get a random article on either an obscure village in the mountains of Pakistan or a little-known Eastern European football team...). However, there are easier ways to locate articles that need attention. When editors come across a page that needs to be improved but they are unable to do so themselves (due to time constraints, lack of sources or just because they don't feel like it) they will often tag it with a cleanup tag. As well as placing a notice at the top of the page to say what needs doing, this also has the effect of listing the article in one of several cleanup categories. You can access most of these categories Category:All articles needing copy edit. What I'd like you to do is this: First, locate an article in need of cleanup. I'd suggest something fairly straightforward, like a page that needs copyediting for spelling and grammar (there's a full list of pages tagged thus here). Make three improvements to the page; these can be minor changes to word order, wikilinks, punctuation or typo fixes, I'm not fussed. When you've done this post a link to the article here.

After that, go to the page Commonly misspelled words and select a word from the list there. Put the incorrect spelling of the word into the Wikipedia search bar at the top right, prefacing it with a single tilde, like this "~mispeling". The tilde means that, rather than searching for an article titled "Mispeling", the search engine will instead return a list of pages which contain the word "mispeling". You can now open each of these in turn, locate the typo, and change it to the correct spelling. Post here when you've fixed three typos in this way. Lixxx235 (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Made a small start at the aorta articleGetting there, good job!, but I'm certain I'm going to do a bit more copyediting and maybe even a major overhaul on that article. It falls right in my biomedical expertise. I've gone for "Tomatoes - Tomatos". Here are the articles I improved:

tomatoes millennium ✅, if you want to, you can skip the rest of this lesson/assignment Lixxx235 (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Flash_(film)#External_links✅
 * 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_(Front_Line_Assembly_album)#Singles (2x)✅
 * 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels_in_America:_A_Gay_Fantasia_on_National_Themes#Production_history✅

How would the extra-curricular(? - commonly misspelled word - ?) course be different from the regular one? Tomato 33 (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh... This is my regular course, as you are my only adoptee who's made it this far ;) --Lixxx235 (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Adoption- part 2
Choose two of the below assignments.

Copy editing
Copy edit 10 articles, then put the diffs here.

Article writing
Write an article that eventually gets assessed "B" class or higher. Put a link to the article below.

Good article reviewing
Familiarise yourself with WP:GA, then review three articles for Good Article status