This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Welcome to the Policies and Guidelines page. The this is used to mentor
Chamal N on Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.
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.
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.
I have some questions.
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.
Excellent work. I particularly like your answer to number four. Your next assignment will come soon.
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?
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?
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!
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!
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?
We are officially done with reviewing the policies and guidelines. Your final quiz will come soon.
You answered 9.5/10 correct, AKA 95%. Good job! What lesson would you like to start now (from the remaining four)
Welcome to the Patrolling page. This page is used to mentor Chamal N on patrolling Wikipedia.
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.
Should I start doing something like new pages patrol/ recent changes patrol now?
I've nominated 9 pages per CSD (It's more than you asked but I had a lot of time)
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?
I would like you to tag 10 more, so I can see your improvement after above comments.
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.
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.
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.
Mostly vandalism by IP addresses, and most of them are minor too.
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.
Sorry for the delay, but I couldn't find any yesterday and I didn't spend much time at recent changes patrol :)
Another 95%. Keep up the good work! What lesson would you like to begin now? I would suggest Writing an Article.-- LAA Fan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the Patrolling page. This page is used to mentor Chamal N on writing an article.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, I think you're done with Writing an article. Final quiz to come soon.
Another 95%. I think this is norm for you. ;) Which lesson would you like to start now?
Welcome to the Perform Administrator Tasks page. This page is used to mentor Chamal N on performing administrator activities.
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:
Before we start, I would to ask you; what admin area would you consider yourself most active in?
Nice, they all check out.
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.
I would like you now to request protection on one article. Questions welcome.
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.
Good. You've learned to be more careful.
Your next assignment will take you to different areas of Wikipedia. You must:
TBA
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Welcome to the Policies and Guidelines page. The this is used to mentor
Chamal N on Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.
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.
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.
I have some questions.
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.
Excellent work. I particularly like your answer to number four. Your next assignment will come soon.
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?
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?
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!
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!
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?
We are officially done with reviewing the policies and guidelines. Your final quiz will come soon.
You answered 9.5/10 correct, AKA 95%. Good job! What lesson would you like to start now (from the remaining four)
Welcome to the Patrolling page. This page is used to mentor Chamal N on patrolling Wikipedia.
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.
Should I start doing something like new pages patrol/ recent changes patrol now?
I've nominated 9 pages per CSD (It's more than you asked but I had a lot of time)
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?
I would like you to tag 10 more, so I can see your improvement after above comments.
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.
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.
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.
Mostly vandalism by IP addresses, and most of them are minor too.
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.
Sorry for the delay, but I couldn't find any yesterday and I didn't spend much time at recent changes patrol :)
Another 95%. Keep up the good work! What lesson would you like to begin now? I would suggest Writing an Article.-- LAA Fan 03:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to the Patrolling page. This page is used to mentor Chamal N on writing an article.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, I think you're done with Writing an article. Final quiz to come soon.
Another 95%. I think this is norm for you. ;) Which lesson would you like to start now?
Welcome to the Perform Administrator Tasks page. This page is used to mentor Chamal N on performing administrator activities.
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:
Before we start, I would to ask you; what admin area would you consider yourself most active in?
Nice, they all check out.
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.
I would like you now to request protection on one article. Questions welcome.
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.
Good. You've learned to be more careful.
Your next assignment will take you to different areas of Wikipedia. You must:
TBA