Wikipedia

User:Chamal N/Adoption

< User:Chamal N

Welcome to the Policies and Guidelines page. The this is used to mentor Chamal N on Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

Overview

These are the policies and guidelines you will learn about during the discussion.These are not all of the policies and guidelines, but merely the most useful ones.


Discussion

Five Pillars

Let's start with the five pillars of Wikipedia. I would like you to read What Wikipedia is not and comment below about what you learned.

Here's the main points I understood from it. I’ll use the headings in the page itself. er... I'm not sure if I'm supposed to include stuff from the pages that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not linked to, but they are here as well. Not too long is it?
  1. Style and format
    • Wikipedia has no limits on the amount of articles it can have or how long they are. But it's better to keep the articles at a reasonable size that won't create problems for the reader, editor or browsers. It also does not mean that we can create an article on whatever topic we want.
    • If an article is too long, it's better to split the article by making long subtopics into different articles. A summary of this part should be given in the original article, with a link to the newly created main article. The lead section of an article should contain a summary of the most important points about the subject of the article.
    • The manual of style should be adhered to when editing any article.
  2. Content
    • Articles that can only contain a few lines should not be created. (such as mere definitions of a word)
    • Articles should not be created to publish your own ideas, feelings or research on a subject and any other insignificant things that are not verifiable. They should not be used for discussing various topics, and talk pages should be used to discuss related matters only.
    • Articles should not be used for gossip, promotional and publicity information.
    • Excessive addition of external/internal links, images and other media should be avoided.
    • Wikipedia should not be used to host our own websites of any type.
    • Lists of insignificant things, directories, catalogs etc. should not be included. Wikipedia is not a collection of data. Just because something exists, it doesn't mean it should be included here.
    • Articles should provide information on the subject and are not intended to provide instructions on how to do something.
    • Speculations or events expected to happen should not be included unless clearly verifiable and it is obvious that it will happen.
    • Only notable information should be included. Insignificant news, statistics etc., even if it is verifiable, should not be included.
    • Content that may be considered inappropriate if included in other articles may be appropriate or even needed for an article related to that subject. Such additions are allowed, as wikipedia is not censored and material is only deemed inappropriate according to the context it appears in.
  3. Community
    • Wikipedia is not a place where you do something (eg: decide the suitability of an edit) by voting. This is done by verifying through reliable sources and discussion.
    • Wikipedia does not have any fixed rules and does not force users to do anything. The policies and guidelines are something that all users should adhere to in order improve wikipedia and its standards.
    • Users should use common sense when dealing with the policies and guidelines. Any problems with others should be resolved through discussion and not by enforcing.
    • Users should not make any kid of personal attack on another user. They are expected to interact and cooperate in a friendly manner. Any dispute, as always, should be resolved through discussion. The help of a another user can be taken for this if needed.
    • Though wikipedia is not 'governed' by anyone or doesn't have any fixed rules, it does not mean that users are free to do what they like. Users should bear in mind that only encyclopedic content is acceptable and nothing apart from that should be done.
    • None of the pages, including the userpage, should be used for personal purposes not related to wikipedia. The userpage is there to improve collaboration among users, and should not be used for any other purpose. Wikipedia should not be treated as a web host where you can keep whatever you want.
  4. If you realize that what you're going to do is probably a bad idea or doesn't comply with the policies and guidelines, don't do it.
  5. Only content that a reader would expect to find on an article should be included in that particular article. Excessive and unwanted information should not be there. Such information is likely to be removed, and even the whole article may be deleted if it appears to be unnecessary.

I have some questions.

  • While reading I came across this. I know that we are discouraged from adding ‘trivia’ sections, but are ‘external links’ also discouraged?
Well, what they're saying in that statement is that you should keep External Links and Trivia Sections to a minimum. For trivia sections, some users (including me), remove the section altogether. However, that does not happen for external links. You do not want to have too many external links because Wikipedia prefers reliable, third party sources. You should always have more references than external links. So, to sum it up, external links are not necessarily discouraged, just remember not to add too many external links.
  • Something I have noticed during recent changes patrol is that in articles about movies, someone creates a 'plot summary' section. Then another person comes along and places something like 'Attention:Spoiler Warning' over it. According to this, a concise plot summary is acceptable. But what should be done about the warnings?
The warnings should be removed from the page. Also, while it is optional, I would leave a message at the talk page of the user who added the warning, and calmly inform them of the policy.

Good! You answers are right on. You are coming along well. I have a new assignment for you. I would like you to read the other four pillars and give a two sentence summary of each policy. Questions are welcome.

  1. Neutral point of view
    • All encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all different views with verifiable sources. All views should be given equal focus and no view should be presented in a biased manner over the others, showing it as the 'correct' view.
  2. Copyrights
    • Content of wikipedia can be copied, modifed and redistributed as long as wikipedia and the authors are attributed to it. Copyrighted work by others should not be added to wikipedia unless there is no substitute and their is a fair use reason, and work in the public domain should be used as much as possible.
  3. Etiquette
    • Always assume good faith when editing, be polite and helpful. Discuss with other editors whenever needed but don't argue, appreciate their work and allow others' views too.
  4. Ignore all rules
    • The policies and guidelines of wikipedia are not fixed rules that users must always strictly adhere to. Whenever a rule prevents you from contributing to wikipedia in a constructive manner you may ignore that rule, but users should be careful in what way it is done and what kind of an impact it may have on other users and wikipedia

Excellent work. I particularly like your answer to number four. Your next assignment will come soon.

Avoid getting blocked

Avoid getting blocked. Blocked means that you did not help the encyclopedia when given the chance. (This is just a general warning, none of it aimed at you) With that said, I would like you to read the blocking policy and banning policy (WP:BP,WP:BAN). When done, I would like you to tell me what is the difference between a ban and a block. Questions are welcome. Don't get discouraged, once we're done with Policies and Guidelines, there will be little, if any, reading, and more discussion.


Reading is not a problem. This way it's better, otherwise I would never have read those articles and tried to compare them. I tried to keep it short:

A ban is when a user is expected not to edit wikipedia for a certain amount of time. It is not a restriction that is enforced, and the user is expected to adhere to it and refrain from making edits until the ban expires. This may be used against vandalism or other disruptive editing.

A block, unlike a ban, is measure taken to actively prevent a user from editing wikipedia. When a user is blocked, he/she will not be able to make edits until the block expires (unless it is a permanent block). Blocks may be imposed for serious violations of policies and guidelines without a fair reason and also against disruptive editing.

The general purpose of imposing bans and blocks is to improve the quality of wikipedia by encouraging more constructive edits and preventing any kind of damage to it. Both bans and blocks can be applied for a specific amount of time, or even permanently. A ban may be a full ban or a partial ban, which applies only to a specific page or pages. Blocks may be applied to enforce a ban, unless it is a partial one. If a ban is violated, it is likely to result in a block and an extension of the ban. Likewise, attempting to evade a block will result in an extension of the block. Editing using different accounts or IP addresses to evade a ban or block may result in those accounts/IP addresses being banned or blocked as well. Any such edits will also be reverted. Users can appeal against both blocks and bans, if they feel that they are unjustified.

Good! Now that that has been covered, let's talk about how you can get blocked. Three typical ways you can get blocked are if you vandalize, have sock puppets, or violate the three reversion rule. Vandalism and having sock puppets is obvious, but the 3RR is something that you can get caught in if you're not careful. Therefore, I would like you to read WP:3RR and comment about what you learned.


All users are expected to limit themselves to a maximum of three reversions per page per day. The purpose of this is to minimize edit warring. A revert is undoing edits of another editor, and normal editing is not considered in the three revert rule. If multiple accounts are used for reverting by the same person, this will be regarded as reverts made by the same user.

Violating the three revert rule may result in a block for 24 days. If it is continued this will be reapplied and increased. However, if a user's reverts are clearly disruptive, he/she may be blocked even if more than three revert have not been made. Users are encouraged to discuss edits with the other users and come to and agreement instead of reverting another user's edits. Exceptions to this rule may include reverting own edits, reverting obvious vandalism or other disruptive edits and undoing edits of a banned user. If a user realizes that he/she has violated the three revert rule, the reverts should be changed back to the previous version. (What is the best thing to do if the three revert rule has been violated while reverting vandalism? It says that this may be an exception to the rule, but it's a 'may')

In response to your question, it is rare for an exception. An exception would come if you are undoing a user with extremely vulgar language. Other than that, it is a big 'may'. I personally do not want to test the 'may' part, and only revert vandalism on a page twice per day.

One thing to say about your answer is that you can be blocked for 24 hours, not days. Other than that, looks good. I would now like to read WP:SOCK and WP:VAN, and give examples on how they are similar and different to each other.


Sorry, careless mistake there.

If an editor uses an alternative account for any unacceptable purposes, that account is known as a sockpuppet account. These are mostly used to violate wikipedia policies and make disruptive edits while keeping the main account 'clean' or to support some view that is being discussed by giving the impression that many users support it. Sockpuppets may also be used to avoid scrutiny, or to vandalize pages in order for the main account to revert them. However, alternative accounts are allowed under some exceptional circumstances and these are not considered as sockpuppets. Use of alternate accounts to make disruptive edits will result in blocking that account and the main account may also be blocked or banned. Sockpuppets can be identified, and suspected sockpuppets can be reported and sockpuppets may be found using methods such as checkuser reports. A sockpuppet may even be a different IP address and doesn't have to be a user account.

Vandalism is an edit made with the deliberate intention of harming an article. However, edits made assuming good faith are not considered as vandalism even if they are inaccurate or unhelpful. Test edits that may be made by new editors are also not considered as vandalism. Vandalism includes removal of content and changing content or adding content that is wrong, containing profanity or even nonsense. Vandalism edits are likely to include profanity, random characters or inappropriate links. Some vandalism edits may even try to 'hide' the vandalism using misguiding edit summaries are appearing to revert vandalism while actually vandalizing. Template vandalism is likely to affect multiple pages while CSS vandalism can disrupt editing or viewing a page. Sockpuppet accounts may also be used for vandalizing. Editors who vandalize pages will be warned and then reported if sufficient warnings are given and warnings are disregarded repeatedly. The user may be blocked as a result.

Both are clear violations of wikipedia policy, and are done obviously with intentions of bad faith.

Question: Are editors operating sockpuppets warned, or are they blocked straight away?

It mostly depends on how many sockpuppets the user has, and the quality of the contributions coming outof the main account. One instance is User:Shapiros10. He created and used a sock (sock was blocked), but main account has not been blocked or banned. However, if you use multiple socks, you are most likely to be blocked. Also look at the "right and wrong" uses on WP:SOCK, and how an editor is treated (also on WP:SOCK). If you want, you may also contact Shapiros10 if you wish, as he is "clean", and is regarded as a trusted member of the community.

Sorry, I think I didn't make that clear. What I meant was if sockpuppet users are warned before they are blocked, like warnings issued to a vandal before they are reported and blocked. If yes, and if they accept any such warning and stop sockpuppeteering, will any action still be taken against them?

No, the warning would be the only action taken against the puppeteer.

Civility

One thing that you should always be on Wikipedia is civil. I myself was not civil when I was brand new, and I am forced now to remember the incident. Anyway, two ways you can be uncivil are by making personal attacks, or by participating in edit wars. Therefore, I would like you to read WP:EW and WP:NPA, and summarize each page in one sentence.


NPA: When you don't agree with another user's edits or views, discuss about them instead of attacking that user in any way.

EW: When you encounter edits that you don't agree with, discuss with the user that made that edit (and other users as well) and try to come to an agreement that satisfies the views of all parties instead of reverting that edit or putting back your own views.

Good answers to the questions. Keep it up!

Editing

When editing an article, you should keep WP:EP in mind. Therefore, I would like you to review the editing policy, and comment about what you learned. Questions are welcome.


Editors are encouraged and expected to improve wikipedia with their edits, but that does not mean every edit has to be perfect. Even if the edit is not of the best standard, other users can improve it or build on it and bring that section or article to a good standard.

Editors are also encouraged to be bold when editing. That is, if you spot a problem or see a chance to improve the article, you should do it. If the current revision of the article has some good information but does not present it in a suitable way, you should try to rearrange or rephrase it into a more suitable form. Inaccuracies should also be corrected, and sources could be provided for information that lacks them. Editors should try to improve the neutrality of articles. However, care should be taken not to make unsuitable additions such as copyrighted material and original research. Always, accurate details should be provided.

When making large edits and especially removing or replacing some content, it is best to discuss them on the article's talk page and agree with other editors on what should be included and what should be removed. Although editors are encouraged to be bold and make edits wherever appropriate, wikipedia should not be used as a discussion form to post your views. Others' views should also be respected and what should appear in an article is an unbiased, neutral representation of all those views.

Good answers. I would like you now to read WP:NOR, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:V, and give a one sentence summary of each. Questions welcome.


No original research: No new theories, ideas etc. should be added to wikipedia and everything that is added must be verifiable through reliable sources, and even if your own researches are included they too must be verified through independent reliable sources.

Copyright violations: Other than using sources for referencing purposes, if content is directly copied from other sources that are not in the public domain they are likely to be copyright violations, and any such identified copyright violations will be removed.

Verifiability: When adding content that is likely to be challenged or opposed they should be supported by references to reliable sources, and any claims or statements not supported should be removed.

Keep it up!

Deletion

This will be brought up later in the adoption, but I would like you to read WP:CSD and WP:DP. How is CSD different from deletion? Questions welcome.

In criteria for speedy deletion administrators may delete pages without discussion. This is because most pages that fall within the criteria for speedy deletion are clearly not suitable for wikipedia, such as attack pages, pages with no content or context, blatant vandalism, copyright violations, recreation of previously delete pages etc. However, other categories such as pages that authors want to be deleted and technical deletions are also included in this. Images, categories, templates etc. have their own criteria. Before deleting, administrators should make sure if the page falls within these criteria or not. If an editor can improve a page, the speedy deletion tag may be removed and the page can be edited. However, the creator of the page should not remove the tag.

Speedy deletion is part of the deletion policy. The deletion policy further includes deletion of copyright violations in which content that may be regarded as copyright violations can be deleted. Other editors have the chance to oppose or support the deletion and discuss about it. Under proposed deletion, pages that may not be suitable for wikipedia can be deleted and here also, it can be discussed on whether or not to delete content. Any pages that may be regarded as suitable for deletion can be subjected to a deletion discussion, and editors can oppose or support deletion by giving their opinions and references to wikipedia policy. If an editor is not satisfied with a deletion or a decision not to delete, the decision can be reviewed. All these can be discussed and a common agreement can be achieved about whether to delete or not, unlike criteria for speedy deletion which is deleted immediately.

Question: What are "pages that do not fall in the above three categories" in Deletion discussion?

Pages that are not copyright violations, do not fall under the speedy deletion criteria, and do not fall under the proposed deletion criteria, may be nominated for deletion as an XFD (depending what the page being nominated for deletion is).

We are officially done with reviewing the policies and guidelines. Your final quiz will come soon.

Final Quiz

  1. . What is the difference between a ban and a block?
A ban is prohibiting a user from editing Wikipedia, and is only a restriction that a user is expected to adhere to. A block is a technical measure that can prevent a user from editing, and may be used to enforce a ban.  Done
  1. . Should you ever submit material that is not in the public domain?
Directly copying material that are not in the public domain is not allowed, as it may be an infringement of copyright. However, they can be used as references for an article. Also, media such as images may be used under certain conditions if there is no substitute for them, and if there is a fair reason for using them.   Done
  1. . Can you be blocked if you make three or fewer reverts to a page in one day?
If the reverts are clearly disruptive, you can be blocked. However if they are normal reverts and not exceeding 3, then you're not likely to be blocked. However, it is encouraged to discuss problems rather than keep on reverting others' good faith edits.  Done
  1. . Should “future history” be on Wikipedia?
This should be avoided as the credibility of such information is uncertain. However, notable information that is well researched and exceptional may be allowed.  Done
  1. . Should you ever get into an edit war with vandals?
An edit war with anyone is not acceptable. The vandal should be given sufficient warnings and reported if they are disregarded, but just keeping on reverting their edits is likely to encourage them to vandalize even more.  Done
  1. . Should you CSD a page because your personal views are different from the ones on the page?
No. The best thing is to discuss about it in the article's talk page and come to an agreement that is acceptable by everyone concerned. Then the article can be edited if necessary so that it provides all viewpoints.  Done
  1. . Are sockpuppets ever allowed?
Sockpuppets are not allowed. However, alternative accounts may be allowed under exceptional circumstances.  Done
  1. . Should you ever get into an edit war, explaining your actions as “ignoring all rules”?
Ignoring rules should be done only if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia. Edit wars have no positive effect on wikipedia, and ignoring rules to engage in such actions that may actually harm it is not acceptable.  Done
  1. . Can users who participate in edit wars be blocked?
Users who deliberately and continuously resort to edit warring without discussing may be blocked.  Done
  1. . What is the difference between references and external links?
References are sources used and referred to in the developing and for verifying the contents of an article. External links are sources outside wikipedia that provide information about the article subject.  Not done Partially right. References are third party sources; external links are considered unreliable as a reference, but a link readers can look at to learn more about the subject.

You answered 9.5/10 correct, AKA 95%. Good job! What lesson would you like to start now (from the remaining four)

How about 'Patrolling'? What would you recommend?
I think patrolling will be fine. I'll create the page in a little while; further discussion will be on that page. Congrats on completing Policies and Guidelines!

Welcome to the Patrolling page. This page is used to mentor Chamal N on patrolling Wikipedia.

Overview

The point of this page is to mentor Chamal N on patrolling recent changes and new pages. Patrolling is a vital part of Wikipedia, so it is important to patrol properly.

Discussion

New Page

Should I start doing something like new pages patrol/ recent changes patrol now?

Yes, my first assignment for you to is to find five pages that meet criteria and mark them for speedy deletion. Let's see how that goes.

I've nominated 9 pages per CSD (It's more than you asked but I had a lot of time)

  1. Jhong Fu Elementary School (DGG believes that it is not suitable for CSD. Tag has been removed and article is now under construction)
I don't believe this meets criteria for speedy either, but it does not have notability in my opinion. I tagged it for an AFD.
  1. New Zealand Free For All (DGG believes that it is not suitable for CSD, but needs expansion. I have tagged the article for expansion.)
One thing to note, is that when you add the expand template, you must add why on the talk page. No worries, I did the same thin when I started patrolling.
  1. Zulfiqar Bhutto Jr.
  2. Arun Paul
  3. Sunkalrajan
  4. Laura blacklock
  5. Amit Singh
  6. Prashant kumar
  7. Gisele cam with her

The nomination shows on my contributions until the deletion, and then it disappears. Only the user notification of the deleted pages remain. Is this normal, or is something wrong?

No this is more than normal, it is than classified as deleted contributions, as you edited a now deleted page. It happens to me all the time. ;)

I would like you to tag 10 more, so I can see your improvement after above comments.

  1. Trayalis
  2. Steak and cheese (Page has been redirected to Cheesesteak)
One thing to remember is to redirect if needed. You now know. If you need the code to put on a redirect page, here it is: #REDIRECT User:LAAFan (Copy and paste code from edit section)
  1. Bring Down Da House
  2. Geremy Lague
  3. Remasys (More information has been added to the article now. I've removed the tag. IceCreamAntisocial has re-added CSD tag later.)
  4. Juliet Never Dies
  5. Black leopard (Pegasus has deleted the article, and recreated again to redirect to Leopard)
See above
  1. Eddie supernerd
  2. Paul Wasserman (More information has been added to the article now. I've removed the tag)
That's good that you are watching the articles. I'm also pleased that you explain your expand templates. Another thing with the templates is to keep tags to a minimum, as suggested to me by User:Mailer Diablo and others.
  1. Sas P 18
  2. Satelite chanell
  3. Twatwaffle

Not too good, is it? I think I've messed up.

Well, you have a .737 success rate (calculated from the 19 you tagged above) With those stats, I would like you to raise your success rate to about .800 at least to start. Don't worry, I had the same problem before. Knowing what you've learned from my comments above, I would like you to tag 20 more, so I can see improvement. Questions welcome. Cheers.

  1. Shanky Fan Club
  2. Zunow Optical
  3. Sirena (band)
  4. Denny Kremer
  5. Sadida athaullah
  6. SVIET (Page has been improved. Author had removed CSD tag. I gave him a warning but I don't see any need to re-tag the article for CSD)
  7. Berenice Chouteau
  8. The Gallant
  9. Felipe Maria (musician)
  10. Richard Magro
  11. Pahuja light house
  12. Cafe esa
  13. Debit and credit in sale and purchase perspective
  14. Beattie v Lord Ebury
  15. Dennis Nyachieo
  16. Pankaj Malik
  17. Crazy Canadian
  18. Jennifer Gomez
  19. Png paak liang ivan
  20. Beta Delta Tau

I was a little more careful this time :)

Good! It seems your success rate has improved greatly. I think we're done with new page patrolling for now.

Recent Changes

The other way to patrol is to patrol recent changes. Since it seems you are an active vandalism fighter, I would like you to revert and warn 20 acts of vandalism. Report back with links to the user talk pages that you added the warning to. (No need to add the vandalized page itself). Questions welcome.

  1. User talk:70.233.178.76
  2. User talk:98.27.203.69
  3. User talk:72.78.222.236
  4. User talk:122.106.250.157
  5. User talk:219.89.228.234 (twice)
  6. User talk:122.107.176.192
  7. User talk:68.106.29.77
  8. User talk:58.174.74.14
  9. User talk:124.183.109.229
  10. User talk:69.230.81.198
  11. User talk:66.189.199.7
  12. User talk:69.237.1.101
  13. User talk:NN Oxenfigger
  14. User talk:Cocacola789123
  15. User talk:98.215.132.124
  16. User talk:124.105.183.143
  17. User talk:Cubs7379
  18. User talk:123.243.200.40
  19. User talk:79.69.228.104
  20. User talk:216.125.48.192
  21. User talk:76.238.238.70

Mostly vandalism by IP addresses, and most of them are minor too.

Good work. One thing to note is to give the appropriate level warnings; I saw one IP that you gave a Level 1 Template, when a Level 2 was needed. Otherwise, keep it up.

I have a harder task for you. I would like you to report three users at WP:AIV. No time limit, I know this could take a day or so. I also saw you're going on a Wikibreak.

  1. User:204.52.179.199 (Messed up - Huggle gave me a wrong message and I went ahead and reported like an idiot. The user had not been issued a final warning. Guess I was a little too hasty)
  2. User:208.108.81.23 (Blocked)
  3. User:69.39.131.242 (Blocked)
  4. User:81.104.159.5 (Blocked)

Sorry for the delay, but I couldn't find any yesterday and I didn't spend much time at recent changes patrol :)

Final Quiz

  1. Is it acceptable to CSD an article without a reason?
    • Articles can be speedy deleted only if they qualify for the speedy deletion criteria. They should not be speedy deleted without a reason.  Done
  2. Can users who continue to violate the copyright guidelines be blocked?
    • If the user repeatedly violates copyright and if sufficient warnings are given but disregarded, the user can be blocked.  Done
  3. Can a user be given only one warning before being blocked?
    • If the user's edits are clearly disruptive and intended to harm Wikipedia, they can be given an 'only warning' such as Template:uw-vandalism4im.  Done
  4. If a user has reverted good edits three times, but not been warned, can you report him to AIV. If so, under what criteria?
    • No. If more than 3 reverts had been made, he could be reported under violation of the 3 revert rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. But in this instance, it's best to warn the user and give them a chance to stop their disruptive editing, and restore the good edits. Protection of that page may be requested if necessary.  Not done Half right. I would still report them, as there really is no warning for a 3RR violation.
  5. If a user vandalized 7 times, but has not been warned once, is it okay to report to AIV?
    • It's best to give the users sufficient warnings before reporting and let the users know that they can be blocked, instead of reporting them straight away.  Done
  6. Can an article be tagged for CSD for a copyright violation?
    • If it's a blatant violation of copyright it may be tagged for CSD. However, if the article can be maintained without the copyrighted material, then removal of that material and improvement of the article can be done. If the article consists very little or no non-infringing material, then it can be deleted.  Done
  7. If a hangon tag is added to a page below a CSD tag, can the article be deleted?
    • If no valid reason is given for not deleting or if the page clearly meets CSD and no changes can make any difference, it can be deleted. Also, if the article had not been improved after a reasonable time, it may be deleted.  Done
  8. If you create an article that gets tagged for speedy deletion, should you remove the tag?
    • No. The article should be tagged with {{hangon}} and the reason that you think the article should not be deleted has to be included in the article talk page.  Done
  9. If you see another editor doing the above, should they be warned? If so, for what?
    • They should be warned for removing speedy deletion tags from pages they have created. Warnings such as Template:Uw-speedy1 can be used for this.  Done
  10. What is the difference between an AFD and a PROD?
    • If an article's deletion may be considered as uncontroversial, it can be nominated for PROD and will be deleted after 5 days if the deletion was not opposed. In AFD, an article's deletion can be discussed and debated on whether to keep it or not. The discussion will go on for up to 5 days and the article will be deleted if that is the result of the debate. Also, if an article nominated for PROD is opposed, it will be brought to AFD.  Done

Another 95%. Keep up the good work! What lesson would you like to begin now? I would suggest Writing an Article.--LAAFan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's what I was thinking too. Let's do that. Chamal Talk 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Patrolling page. This page is used to mentor Chamal N on writing an article.

Overview

The point of this page is to mentor Chamal N on writing article. Articles are the core of Wikipedia, so it is important to write them properly.

Discussion

References

Sorry again for the late response. I've been busy with an article. Anyway, my first assignment for you is to review WP:V and WP:NOR, just to get familiar with the policies again. No more than that; reply here when done.

I'm done reading the articles. No problem with the delay, I won't be here as much as before because school just started again. I'll be here everyday but will be editing only for a few hours.
No worries. :) Here are the links some template for refs, which you might find useful.

My reason for giving you these? I would like you to add a reference to an article, either a cite book, web or journal (I don't have a preference) If you're confused about the code, you can copy the codes from one page I've worked on, which is, in my opinion, my best work. That page is Cy Young. Upon completion, give me a link to the article. Questions welcome.

I've added one to the article 101st Airborne Division (United States). The link doesn't directly say that 101st was the first to be deployed, but the dates given show that (is that ok?). This page gives the exact details, but I don't think that can be regarded as a reliable source, can it?
That's perfectly fine.

DYK

This is the part of the adoption when you will show off your skills. My next assignment for you is to pick an article, any article, and either get an FA, GA, or DYK.

Don't worry; there is a hole in the task. For a GA, you can get an episode of a television show to a GA if you wish. (See Homer's Odyssey, only 8 references.) If you do want to do an episode article, you can do whatever show you want. If you want to raise an article to FA status, I require it must be at GA already. For GA, it must be a B class already. I will work with you on whatever article you choose. My personal advice is to get a DYK, because I might not be able to help as much for an FA or GA, as I'm currently working on getting Major League Baseball to GA, and ultimately, FA. Questions welcome.

I think I'll go for DYK. Better to start small ;) I'll read more about this and let you know when I'm ready.
How about this one: Vijayabahu I. It's currently a stub with only 4 lines, but this king was one of the most notable in Sri Lanka and there's a lot of information that should be included here (And several points that I think can be used for DYK too). I think it can be expanded into a fairly descriptive article. Can you let me know what you think? I'll start looking for sources now.
Well, it has about 1200 bytes, which means you'll have to make it about 6000. Here are the DYK guidelines:
  1. Article must be created or expanded fivefold by nominator.
  2. Article must have 1500 characters of main body text. (not counting headers, infoboxes, etc)
  3. The "hook" in your nomination must be in the original article
  4. The hook you're using must be supported by a reference in the article.

I personally think it's up to you. If you're willing to make the article 6000 bytes, go for it. If you want to start smaller, you can choose something else, or contact me for suggestions. Questions welcome.

The expansion can be done I think. But since the hook has to be in the original article, I guess the only thing that can be included is "reuniting the country for the first time in over a century". Will it be good enough? It sounds OK to me (reuniting the country seems to me something big, particularly since only 6 kings have done it in the history of Sri Lanka.) but what do you think? Maybe I'm wrong, I don't have the experience with this.
I've created a kind of rough draft of the article here. I haven't added any references or done the linking properly yet. I'm thinking of leaving the original text in Vijayabahu I as the lead section (with a few alterations) and putting this in as the main body. Can you tell me what you think? I've got a feeling that it's not too good :(
I think that would be great to do. You're a little short, though, for the fivefold expansion. Do you have any references you could add to cover the difference? My suggestion would be to also get an infobox from another article that fits the profile. Infoboxes are about 1,000 bytes, which would more than cover 500. Here's my review so far, from your sandbox.
  1. Article must be created or expanded fivefold by nominator.  Done
  2. Article must have 1500 characters of main body text. (not counting headers, infoboxes, etc)  Done
  3. The "hook" in your nomination must be in the original article  Not done
  4. The hook you're using must be supported by a reference in the article.  Not done

So, to add on to the above, if can't find any more references, my suggestion would be to find an infobox, and move the citation in the main part of the article, not the intro, therefore making it your hook.

I added an infobox code on the rough draft page.

Thanks. I have some references. I'll add them now and then copy-paste the draft into the article. I've found an infobox from Parākramabāhu I, but it's the same as this one. I'll add the references now.
I've added the references and infobox and saved the article at Vijayabahu I. I think it needs to be cleaned up more, and I can find a few more references if needed. What do you think about this? Good enough, close, or needs a lot of work? :)
Good! You're half done. What you need to do now is to submit a hook at Template talk:Did you know. Remember, the hook must be in the article and supported by a reference in the article. (You don't need to add the reference at Template Talk:DYK. I'll do part of it for you; here is a hook:
  • Did you know that, following a seventeen year campaign, Vijayabahu I successfully reunited Sri Lanka in 1070, the first time in more than a century? Expanded fivefold. Signature here.

You can copy and paste that hook. I can't review it (conflict of interest), but I'll check the page now and again to see the review of it.

Thanks again. When you say 'in the article', does it mean that it should be in the main body and not the lead section? And should I find another source that directly shows this fact?
No, I just mean that the statement should be in the article and referenced. Whether it's in the lead or the main body text doesn't matter.
Follow up If you have concerns about submitting it wrong, I can submit for you. Don't worry. The credit would go to you; not me. I tell them I'm submitting for you, and, because you're my adoptee, they would understand. So, do you want me to submit it for you?
I can submit it ok, my problem is that there's nothing to support that "more than a century" phrase. Should it be changed not to include that part?
No, I think it's good. I'll watch the page to see what happens with the submission.
I asked RyRy to review it. I've know him since my account was brand new, and I trust his opinion. We'll see what he says.

He passed it! Great job! Before we start our next assignment, however, I would like the DYK to be on the Main Page. That will come in about four days, since there's a backlog of nominations.

Cool! Thanks for the help and directions!
I saw you submitted another nomination. Good! You're on your way! (Sorry for the exclamation points)
Yeah, I saw this at requested articles and thought I might just as well get that article started. Not sure about the DYK passing though :) Anyway, I have a question. When adding sources to this, Wikipedia told me that the site 'army-guide.com' was blacklisted. I took most of the information from this site, so there was no way to cite some of the information in the article. What should be done in a situation like this? Oh, and I might not be active for several days, since I'm having problems with my connection and I'm not sure when it will be fixed. Forget that part, it was fixed. I can edit again.
It's good that you're helping out at WP:RA. I believe the site was blacklisted because Wikipedia believes it is an advertisement. I believe the same thing happened when I tried to add a reference that led to a page describing a petition. I would just take that information and reference out, unless you want it to be uncited. I would also try to find another site with the same info.

On an unrelated note; you officially have your first DYK. If you would like, I can show you how to "advertise" it. What I mean by that, is, you can get an icon or userbox, showing your accomplishment. See User:RyRy for an example of the icon.

It's done. I'll polish it up later. The reviewing takes a lot of time though, doesn't it? There're a lot of unreviewed hooks that are a few days old. Anyway, I was thinking of creating a new article (something I can improve, not just stubs) but couldn't find a good topic. Can you give me any ideas?
It's actually usually pretty updated, there just seems to be a backlog right now. As for the topic, I'm pretty narrow about what I write about. My suggestion is just to write about something that interests you.

Well, I think you're done with Writing an article. Final quiz to come soon.

Final Quiz

  1. What is the most important thing to keep in mind while writing an article?
    • To keep it neutral, with appropriate references and no original research.  Done
  2. Is a blog a reliable source?
    • Blogs are not accepted as reliable sources, unless in some circumstances where it's done by an established expert on the subject. Even then, more reliable sources may be found instead of the blog if the subject is notable.  Done
  3. Where do you nominate DYK submissions?
  4. How many characters of main body text does a DYK nomination need to have?
    • A minimum of 1500 characters should be there. However, even articles longer than this may be rejected if they can be considered too short.   Done
  5. Name three kinds of cite templates.
  6. Does every reference need to have an author?
    • It is not necessary to include the author in every reference. However, it is better to include these details if they are available.  Done
  7. In cite web, is the work and publisher tabs the same?
    • No. Publisher is the organization that hosts the website, and Work is the website, book etc. that the page is part of.  Not done Half right. You have publisher right, but the work is the author.
  8. Where do you submit good article nominations?
  9. Where do you submit featured article nominations?
  10. Do trivia sections in articles need to be removed?
    • Trivia sections are discouraged, and can be removed or the information added to other parts of the article as necessary. Information that is not needed for an encyclopedic article should be removed.  Done

Another 95%. I think this is norm for you. ;) Which lesson would you like to start now?

I used 'work' for author in all my referring, but checking the template page again I came across this confusing explanation, and I thought it was something like this. As for the next lesson, how about "Perform Administrator tasks"? That's about participating in discussions and things like that, I think?
No worries. No you know. Perform Admin Tasks is about all types of admin areas (AIV, RFPP, XFD, etc.) I'll create the page.

Welcome to the Perform Administrator Tasks page. This page is used to mentor Chamal N on performing administrator activities.

Overview

The point of this page is to mentor Chamal N on working in admin areas. Here are some admin areas that we will be working in:

Discussion

AIV

Before we start, I would to ask you; what admin area would you consider yourself most active in?

AIV is the one I've been most active in. I've been involved in RFPP a few times, but never in XFD
Okay, AIV. My first task for you is AIV related. I would like you to report three users to AIV. You have 72 hours (or three days) to do this

Nice, they all check out.

Help Desk

Looking through your contributions, your most active Wikipedia namespace is the Help Desk. Therefore, I would like you to answer 5 user's questions. Questions welcome.

RFPP

I would like you now to request protection on one article. Questions welcome.

  1. The Right Brothers temporary semi-protection requested : declined
  2. Gonorrhea indefinite semi-protection requested : semi-protected for 2 weeks

Your mistake on the one was that you just saw revisions. You have to be careful; articles with only one vandal, no matter how many times they vandalized, will be declined for RFPP. Now that you know this, I would like you to tag two more. Questions welcome.

  1. Industrial Revolution - temporary semi-protection requested: semi-protected for one month
  2. Paper clip - temporary semi-protection requested: semi-protected for 72 hours
  3. Press TV - I made this request following this discussion with User:Causteau, regarding a weird problem with that article. Temporary semi-protection requested: semi-protected for 72 hours.

Good. You've learned to be more careful.

XFDs

Your next assignment will take you to different areas of Wikipedia. You must:

  • !Vote in an AFD
  • !Vote in an MFD
  • Look over the Proposed Deletion policy

Final Quiz

TBA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Chamal_N/Adoption&oldid=1142054480"