User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/Eteethan

Let's start here.

Read

Please read the following articles/pages. Feel free to ask any question

• Vandalism
• Wikipedia:Vandalism

--Tito Dutta (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, great. I just finished reading. I have one question though:

• What situation would a 4im warning be used as the only warning?

Thanks, Ethan. Eteethan (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• 4im is the only warning. It is harsh, and should not be used for good faith edits. You may use it for clear vandals, who show no intention to improve the encyclopedia. For example, an editor blanked 6-7 pages or replaced content with "LOL" or something. You can give them 4im warning. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I am ready to move on.Eteethan (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I read WP:AGF and WP:BITE because I saw that another student of yours and I'm guessing you would want me to read it too. Thanks, Ethan. Eteethan(talk) 22:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

• Please explain WP:AGF in your own words. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF Explanation

AGF means Assume Good Faith, which is where all contributions to Wikipedia are assumed to be in good faith (meaning trying to help Wikipedia) except for obvious vandalism or personal attacks. For example, if someone makes an edit to a page which removes a few details or changes dates incorrectly, we would assume that this contribution was not intended to hurt Wikipedia (which means that the edit was in good faith). Even with people who have vandalized Wikipedia in the past, it is important to assume good faith. We should always use good faith when dealing with trouble users at to encourage them to make edits in good faith. Thanks, Ethan. Eteethan(talk) 21:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Makes sense. Thanks. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Please read Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace/Multi-level templates --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Titodutta I have finished reading these pages. I've been using Twinkle to revert vandalism so far and have used these a lot. Thanks, Ethan. Eteethan(talk) 18:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Have you faced any problem to use Twinkle? Do you want to learn using any other tool? See Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism/Tools --Tito Dutta (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Tasks

• Notify/warn 3 users using WP:Twinkle (or manually), and list talk page links here.
• Make 3 reverts (with edit summary) and give me the diff links.

Revert Diff	Reason	Talk Page Diff
[1]	Blatant Vandalism	[2]
[3]	Vandalism	[4]
[5]	Vandalism: He's a footballer, not a motorcycle racer.	[6]

• These make sense. Could you write edit summaries too? Example: "non-constructive edits", "infomation without source, please add RS". -_Tito Dutta (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Test

Go through this User:Titodutta/CVU#Test and tell me how many could you answer correctly? --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I got all of them right excepts Master #2. I was also recently granted the rollback and reviewer rights. Eteethan (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Shared Belief

My apologies if a third party is not allowed to post here, but Eteethan's reverts to Shared Belief and vandalism warnings to myself were seriously in error. 173.17.170.8 (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I second 173.17.170.8. These reports of a death of a notable sports figure were legitimate, but using Facebook as a source is not encyclopedic. As long as WP:RELIABLE sources can be found the revert should not have been made. Huggle is a dangerous tool if misused properly. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree that Facebook was not a reliable source here, see WP:RS. Writing edit summary is also recommended. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

@Titodutta: I reverted this edit because I saw the use of Facebook as a source for quite a large claim (horse's death). According to WP:RS, Facebook should not be used as a source for an "exceptional claim". Eteethan(talk) 17:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Tasks

You are a going well. These are some of the final things I ask to do

From today make a list of 10 reverts below you'll make in Wikipedia. Remember 1) you can not choose reverts (you have to include every revert whether you consider those vandalism or not) 2) You can tag vandalism with "Yes". "No" or Y, N 3) Add "diff"s using "{{diff}}" template. 3) Make sure to add appropriate edit summaries, warn users, report to noticeboards etc (if necessary). --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Make successful protection requests at WP:RFPP. But, please request only if you think it's necessary. --Tito Dutta (talk) 05:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC) Here are 10:

Diff	Comment
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]	Added "phone number" of subject, I requested oversight via IRC
[14]
[15]
[16]

I haven't made many RFP requests. (And to answer your previous question, I use Huggle and STiki.) Eteethan(talk)🎄 17:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• User:Eteethan looks good over-all. However STiki and Huggle reverts are not the best options to check one's skill. The most problematic area is content disputes. I hope you do know about WP:3RR and WP:1RR. Now

1. Have you reported against anyone for violating WP:3RR? --Tito Dutta (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Here's a recent report: [17] Eteethan(talk) 12:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)