L235

Reply to 'What's the point of this edit?"

Just linking the date and year with the appropriate page. That's all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevoQ1991 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 May 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, as Kinu said, "Per MOS:UNLINKDATES, dates such as this (i.e., parenthetical dates of birth) are not to be linked". Also, when sending someone a new talk message, send it on the bottom. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask them here. We all were new to Wikipedia, and it has a lot of weird rules. Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry, I didn't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevoQ1991 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, remember to sign your posts with ~~~~--Lixxx235 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. [[User:StevoQ1991|StevoQ1991]] — Preceding undated comment added 21:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 23:05, Thursday, November 7, 2024 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You are doing a great work in CSD and PROD tagging. Skr15081997 (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Goodness, thanks! Cheers! --Lixxx235 (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, just realized that the more successful someone is at doing CSDs and PRODs, the less edits they have over time, because all their edits get deleted ;) --Lixxx235 (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

One source

Much before you welcome me, know the guidelines. You are clearly abusing that tag.

Such tag is not required if article is hardly 500 bytes or less(apart from the reference itself). OccultZone (Talk) 04:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please link a relevant policy when stating that the tag "is not required if article is hardly 500 bytes or less". Furthermore, even if the tag was not required, any person may still, at their discretion, tag any article with one source with Template:One source. As for welcoming you, I apologize for that. I wasn't aware that you were an established user as I saw the red user page link and assumed you were a brand new editor, at which point I went back to editing. Please remember to WP:AGF. --Lixxx235 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I copy here the Twinkle documentation on Template:one source: {{one source}}: article relies largely or entirely upon a single source--Lixxx235 (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

First of all, that was not really a opinion but basic sensibilities that we use during the page patrolling or page review. If multiple sources have been added, you will probably tag it with "additional sources", in short words, it will never end. Other than that, these are WP:BLP articles, one source is required for each of them. Per Template:One_source#Editorial_usage, you have to address about the source first, if it is either unreliable or not supporting the given information as much as it should. If your issues are correct, then we can accept such tag, even now the article is very small. We do have articles such as List of countries by external debt, List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate, they largely depend upon the single source. But since they speak enough about the given information or subject, there will be no need to tag them. OccultZone (Talk) 04:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, I agree with your conclusion that one source should not be used unless non-reliable is used also. However: 1. That is not a guideline, as you implied by "know the guidelines" 2. 500 bytes has no meaning; it's not a small/big article distinction, it's whether the article's existing source(s) are reliable and conform to WP:V or not, and based on that, I am inclined to nom it for deletion, as there really is no point to it; reliable sources isn't valid if there's one reliable source, and one source is invalid unless the first source is non-reliable 3. Using standard rollback [1] was a gross misuse of the permission, as rollback is not to be used except obvious vandalism, and vandalism must be intentional disruption 4. Your entire first two posts are seriously against WP:BITE and WP:AGF 5. Your mention of WP:BLP was flawed, as all articles must be supported by outside sources, but BLPs can be PRODed for not having a source. Notwithstanding all that, friends? --Lixxx235 (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree the 3rd point, but I had hit it by mistake, I don't really use rollback as I provide reason every time. Yes you can nominate them for deletion, but I don't know what you meant by "and one source is invalid unless the first source is non-reliable", BLPs can be proded for not having sources, correct. Sources like imdb, allmusic, etc should not be used as references, though they are pretty reliable. Last point would be, that WP:Bite doesn't apply here :) I hadn't warned you, my sole concern was to notify you about the OneSource tag. OccultZone (Talk) 05:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, friends?--Lixxx235 (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not, Happy to meet you! OccultZone (Talk) 05:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad choice, as now you'll lose about an extra half hour a week answering questions ;) --Lixxx235 (talk) 05:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked that you've been registered for years, how come you got active recently? OccultZone (Talk) 05:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, dearie me, that's a long story... I... decided to become active, I guess. I had already read most of Wikipedia policy, arbcom rulings, etc., months ago, and was only previously studying them for my personal entertainment. I guess I wanted to get involved.--Lixxx235 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Small Secret

Here's some small secrets to get the ability to revert more vandalism.

• Tools like Huggle and WP:STIKI are always useful. Though you have to be careful about them, as they may cause a bit of people angry at you because you accidentally clicked the wrong version. They are automatic for the most part. (Especially Huggle) Both require rollback, but Stiki can be requested permission, and you can use it without it.
• The abuselog. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseLog <- This is what I did for a bit, the only edits I believe you can revert are the ones with a 'diff' link. Though do take note there are false positives and to be cautious in reverting.
• Happy reverting! (And sorry for stealing your reverts! :3) Tutelary (talk) 14:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Huggle is the reason I'm trying to get more article space edits- so I can get 200 and have a reasonable chance getting rollback. Thanks for the tips! --Lixxx235 (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd personally request permission for WP:STIKI, as it is an effective tool and could aid you. It doesn't require rollback. ~~

Talkback

Hello, L235. You have new messages at ToBk's talk page.
Message added 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ToBk (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)