User:Titodutta/CVU/Students/Caballero1967

Let's start. We'll discuss here. Once you are done you may add a {{

Read

Please read

Thanks for the reading. Doing it now.

talk

) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sure. :) --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@

talk

) 22:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Right. --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read

@

talk

) 12:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

• In my opinion, after CSD tagging, it could be taken to
  WP:CSD (and not PROD), if it is really a spam, it could be speedily deleted from there. Okay, I know, you have not tagged it. --Tito Dutta (talk
  ) 04:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you use any tool such as WP:Twinkle, WP:STiki to fight vandalism? --Tito Dutta (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I have used WP:Twinkle and wish to learn WP:STiki soon. Thanks

• Your reverts look good, still could you explain why did you revet:

1. 1
2. 2

--Tito Dutta (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

@Titodutta: Thanks for your encouragement and for asking about my reverts.

1- "Owned by Jews" is among the oldest disparaging ethnic remarks in history. When I noticed the user's first instance, I checked for reasons and connections to the article and found none. Then looked into the user's contribution and noticed the sequence. I think the purpose was evident.

2- The term male entertainer has several meanings. Among many professionals, it runs the gamut from actors, comedians, to musicians, but in the Internet's popular culture it is often linked to male strippers, which is also a common way of depreciating individuals or simply, vandalism. It is important to state that I do not think there is something wrong in this career. Rather, that many people, especially young high schoolers, see it as a way of making fun of others. So, I looked for design and purpose in changing the BLP's occupation from entrepreneur to male entertainer and saw nothing obvious. Searched for the name in Australia, and found nobody with this description, and again thought the reasons for the change were inconspicuous. The next step required me to ask the user to provide sources, which is what I did: a revert on good faith requesting evidence.

Of all the reverts I performed yesterday, I had about 5 good turned-backs. Take this one: an infrequent, but correct use of the word "remonstrate" (I thanked the editor). Others, I had to go back and re-explain my case, for example, when a new user said he/she heard it in the radio (it was a good faith issue too), and I re-asked for evidence or for an explanation/discussion in the article's Talk Page prior to changes to the article. I posted my comments in both the user and the article's Talk pages.

Please, let me know your thoughts. You may have a different take

talk

) 06:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• That's great. --Tito Dutta (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:Protection policy --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Will do.

talk

) 06:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Also read
  WP:1RR
• Let me know if you have finished reading. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Reading about Page Protection and Edit Warring policy

• @Titodutta: Please, accept my apologies for the long wait in responding. Final exams first got in the way, and then a series of issues related to WP drew me away from responding, but not from the assignment. What I mean is that while dealing with issues of edit warring, vandalism, and page protection, I had to review, several times, the pages you assigned me to read. In fact, I had to read much more than those. Today, I went back to them and re-read them with the intent of preparing for your questions. Perusing them prompted me to ask a question in the Edit Warring Talk page noticeboard.

• About the time you assigned me this reading, I also descended into an acidic discussion with an administrator here. It all started when rather than reverting an IP User's deletion, which I found incorrect, I followed "good practices" and explained my concerns in the article's Talk Page. Despite the evidence and arguments I brought, the administrator (sole participant) was adamant to keep the change. Unintentionally, he became a teacher by throwing unfamiliar terms and policies at me. But the schooling did not stop there. Thinking that this administrator was unreasonable, I asked for advice to other users, unknown to me. One of them thought I was asking her to join the discussion, and her presence just infuriated the administrator even more. In the end, we decided to close the discussion and return to it later. I had not visited the page since.
• My first experience in the Edit Warring noticeboard began when I reverted a user with a history of combative editing, and he accused me of warring with only three reverts. Here is the long debate. It ended in "no-violation," but not after I had worried plenty and invested much in defending my actions. Both of these experiences changed me. I am now more careful with Stiki, and cognizant that in WP the human interactions are more unpredictable and often less polite than what I thought before.
• Though I have edited WP for more than ten years and have a long and rich experience with scholarly online forums, I was not prepared for the contempt and meanness that I found after becoming more involved. It has at times led me to rethink my association with this project. It has not been all somber, however, for example, here and here. But working with Stiki has ensured that I continue to encounter controversies. Fortunately, they have grown fewer and less hostile. I am a bit more detached from the pages I patrol for vandalism, but can't feel the same with those in which I have made a substantial investment, and where I feel I am an authority on the subject (for example, here). In sum, the ups and downs since we last spoke have made me appreciate these pages in relation to real-life circumstances. I wonder what editors used before them. Please, let me know what questions you have for me. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 17:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Okay, that's alright. What happened to your other account? I am curious to know sometimes using multiple accounts without informing publicly create a lot of issues later. --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Titodutta, I only have one account. I had requested a change of username because for a time wanted to keep my identity semi-public, and Edjohnston suggested to choose a signature near to my username, either Caballero (which means Hidalgo, Knight) or Historiador (historian), but to make sure that people could trace back my comments, I chose to keep them both. Let me find the diffs for the change of username. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 18:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
• Here is a link to a screenshot of the email I received approving the username change. Here is another informing about the change in my user-page. This is my former user page with the info that it has been changed. Please, let me know what else can help to satisfy your curiosity. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 19:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was talking about
  WP:ALTACCN, anyway, it should not be a problem here. --Tito Dutta (talk
  ) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• Titodutta, I just requested a change of name. If I read the info correctly, there is no problem, isn't? Now, I continued reading and learned about
  WP:FAMILY. My son has an active WP account and he usually writes from home too. There is also a colleague who writes occasionally from my IP. What should I do about it? Caballero//Historiador ^☊
  19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• You may or may not disclose it on your userpage (even if you disclose, I don't think yo should give user account details also, that's too much personal information). But if an
  WP:SPI start against any of these accounts, at that time it might be slightly difficult. However you don't need to worry, I feel. You have already written about it above.
  On the other hand, I am a Wikipedia trainer in real life too, I use same WiFi/IP address with dozen of other users regularly. Tito Dutta (talk
  ) 20:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

*Thanks for the reassurance and explanations. I am open to your suggestions for continuing with the course. Cheers, Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 20:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It is already 2:09 am here, Tomorrow I'll move this page following your username, and resume this training. --Tito Dutta (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Help in thinking of the best route

Dear @Titodutta: I hope you are doing well. Whenever you have the time, I would appreciate your thoughts about what is going on with the Haitian Revolution's article and user WaldoHappy. Thanks. Cheers, Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 15:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know about any policy or guideline that states "citations should be avoided in lead". There are thousands of articles including featured articles where you'll find citations in lead, but as lead generally summarizes an article, if something is discussed in body with citation, the same citation may be avoided in lead.
  About which scholars recognize as "a world-historical process,, I have a couple of questions a) which scholars, where did they claim so? b) do you have citation for this? You may see
  WP:Weasel. --Tito Dutta (talk
  ) 18:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Few are as familiar with the sources, and if given the time and space, I can rewrite this article in two weeks while accepting that it belongs to everybody (
  WP:CO) with the purpose of getting this article off the ground. Though I just asked the few students of mine who are still active during the holidays to stay away from this dispute, I could set this article as a focus for one of my classes this semester (it starts in two weeks). I have done similarly with smaller articles. Alternatively, I could request both a "Third Option," and a dispute resolution. One for the content, and the other for the ways in which this user has intervened in the article. These suggestions were just to start the conversation; I am open to the others you may have. Cheers, Caballero//Historiador ^☊
  23:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:BRD? Feel free to ask if you have any question. --Tito Dutta (talk

• On the reading: Tito Dutta, as you can imagine, I have read these pages several times in search for answers to specific issues, but I re-read them today with the purpose of discussing them with you. In regards to the
  WP:3RR, it is a clear line, which passing it means you have obviously violated an expectation. This is rather useful since in the heat of the moment it is easy to revert without much judgment or patience. It requires some distance from the subject. The rule, however, does not preclude other forms of warring. Warring can also be traced back to a history of gradual or slow reverts-- slow-motion type of edits warring. Much, I think, is related to the user's record, measured through perceived attitudes, sense of article-ownership and willingness (or lack of it) to collaborate. Watching the edit warring forum was illuminating. I found the most interesting thing: users admitting to their uncontrollable propensities to revert. I could not have imagined how Wikipedia could have attracted so many users with OC. In fact, it seems that most users landing at the forum have some measure of it (which is not always an unfavorable trait). At this moment, I have no question about these rules/strategies since I have already thought much about them and seen them in action in various settings, but I welcome yours. Cheers, Caballero//Historiador ^☊
  18:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Question. I think I have come up with a question. Given the proliferation of editors who use the
  WP:BRD only for stagnation. But I have seen the other practice more common. Perhaps WP:DRBYER?. Caballero//Historiador ^☊
  13:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: I hope you are doing well. Would you let me know about the reading and what is the next step? Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 15:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Given the proliferation of editors who use the
  WP:BLPN, WP:EWNB discussion? --Tito Dutta (talk
  ) 14:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)