User:Pratyya Ghosh/Adoption-Guru-45

Hello, welcome to your Adoption page! Every person I instruct will have their own page on which I will give them support and tasks for them to complete. Please make sure you have this page added to your watchlist. Your academy page has been specifically designed according to you and what you have requested instruction in - for that reason, please be as specific as possible when under my instruction, so that I know the best ways to help you (and do not be afraid to let me know if you think something isn't working). If you have any general queries anything about adoption, you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

This page will be built up over your time in the Academy, with new sections being added as you complete old ones. Each section will end with a task, written in bold type - this might just ask a question, or it might require you to go and do something. You can answer a question by typing the answer below the task; if you have to do something, you will need to provide diffs to demonstrate that you have completed the task. Some sections will have more than one task, sometimes additional tasks may be added to a section as you complete them. I'll tell you when you need to sign.
 * How to use this page

I'll use three signs to examine your tests. They are
 * Examining tests
 * ✅ Good answer; correctly addresses all points relevant to the question and shows a sound understanding of the issues involved.
 * Nearly a good answer, just something is missing-I will say what
 * Wrong answer; shows a misunderstanding or wrong answer

The Five Pillars
The fundamental principles by which Wikipedia operates can be summarized in five "pillars":


 * BluePillar.svg Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
 * It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projects are.


 * GreenPillar.svg Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
 * We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong.


 * YellowPillar.svg Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute.
 * Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources. Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first.


 * OrangePillar.svg Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
 * Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming. If a conflict arises, discuss it calmly on the nearest talk pages, follow dispute resolution, and remember that there are other articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss.


 * RedPillar.svg Wikipedia does not have firm rules.
 * Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making an exception. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles and do not agonize about making mistakes. Every past version of a page is saved, so any mistakes can be easily corrected.

How articles should be written
The articles on Wikipedia are designed to represent the sum of human knowledge. Each article should be written from a neutral point of view. Personal opinions such as right and wrong should not appear, nor should an editor make changes based solely on personal experience. To ensure that the information in an article is correct, Wikipedia has adopted a policy of verifiability. Our readers should be able to confirm anything they read on Wikipedia by looking at the associated reliable source. Wikipedia should not include anything that cannot be verified elsewhere; in other words, it should not contain anything original.

Reliable sources
Information on Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. So, what is a reliable source? Wikipedia uses the word source for three interchangeable ideas – a piece of work, the work's creator or the work's publisher. In general, you would expect a reliable source to be one of the following: a published material with a reliable publication process, an author who is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. This doesn't mean that a source that is reliable on one topic is reliable on every topic. It must be regarded as authoritative on the topic you are writing about. MLB.com is certainly a reliable source on matters related to Major League Baseball, but that does not make it a reliable source for information about NASA. It is certainly possible that a source could provide accurate information on a matter that it is not generally associated with. However, the best method is to use sources that are clearly related to the subject.

A source that is self-published is usually considered unreliable, unless it is published by a recognized expert in the field. This is a very rare exception, so self-published sources should generally not be used. This means that anything in a forum, blog and even most websites will be considered unreliable by default. One interesting sidepoint is on self-published sources talking about themselves. Obviously, a source talking about itself is going to be authoritative, but be careful that the source is not too self-serving. For the sake of neutrality, an article really should not be entirely derived from a direct source.

Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable... but any single article should be assessed on a case by case basis. Some news organizations have been known to check their information on Wikipedia, so be careful not to get into a cyclic sourcing situation!

There's a lot more about what makes a source reliable here.

About this lesson
Hey if you have any question then you can ask me I said earlier. Now make sure you've read this three topics. You need to pass a pre-test to have the main test. So read and understand these three topics. Good Luck. -- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 10:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood the lesson.Guru-45 (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Pre-test
Now here's your pre-test. Each question contains 10 marks. So it's total 70. You need to get 60-65 to have the main test. This pre-test's mark will not be added in the final result. It's just a qualifier. If you've read and understand clearly what's written up there I think you'll get full marks.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 06:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

1.) Q- You can play FIFA 13 nicely and you are master of the game. You know all the tricks, keys etc of that game. Can you add those guides of that game to the FIFA 13 article? Why do you think that?
 * A:-No.For Two reasons.


 * The information I will be putting won't be published by a reliable third-party source.
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
 * ✅ So right. 10/10

2.) Q- Suppose you need to be bold to help Wikipedia. But one of Wiki's rule prevents you from being be bold. What'll you do then?
 * A:-I will be bold then,and do what will help Wikipedia.
 * ✅ No second opinion. 10/10

3.) Q-Suppose Ghosh 10 (I said suppose. It has no reality) making mistakes often and often. Will you be rude to him or scold him badly?
 * A:-No.It is against etiquette to be rude to users.
 * ✅ Absolutely right. 10/10

4.) Q- Suppose you've written Gareth Bale. Do you have the copyright of that article? Why do you think that?
 * A:-No.My work is freely licensed under the terms of the CC-BY-SA.
 * ✅ 10/10

5.) Q- Suppose Dav Whatmore has resigned from Pakistan Cricket Team. Can you add this to the Pakistan team's article?
 * A:-No.Unless it is covered by independend,third-party news sources,I cannot do so.
 * ✅ Superb. You are good! 10/10

6.) Q- Describe what's neutral point of view and what's under neutral point of view briefly.
 * A:-NPOV should be done in the following way:


 * Opinions on a topic should be attributed to sources,not written in Wikipedia's own voice.
 * Seriously contested theories(like creationism) should be treated as opinions when writing the article on Evolution(just an example).
 * Facts should not be stated as if they are opinions.
 * Language should be non-opinionated.
 * Undue weight should not be given to a very tiny minority view.(E.g.:In an aricle on Earth,language like "Expert A says that the earth is a sphere,whereas expert B say the earth is flat."
 * ✅ Right. But there's some other things like you must use an impartial tone, you need to use most reliable sources after searching for sources, etc. No worry your answer's well. I'm giving 10/10

7.) Q- Suppose you are writing about Saint Mary's Kindergarten (It's not real). What things your articles should and must contain and what should and must not. Describe briefly.
 * A:-A brief introductory section,location,affailation of the school,principal,any events or specialities of the school covered by reliable,external sources.
 * . You are right but you missed the main trick. Your article should and must be written on a neutral point of view, It must have verifiability which means it should have reliable sources (you've stated that) and your article should not contain original research, personal opinions etc. Anyway you are right in one way. That's why I'm giving you half. Which means 5/10

Result (Pre-test)
You've passed the pre-test successfully. Here's the result. Now read these three topics more carefully and clearly for one day. I'll submit the main test tomorrow. Good luck. This test's mark will be counted. At last you are doing great. If you go on like this I think in a few days you'll be more experienced than me. -- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 14:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Test (Theoretical)
Now here's the final one for Lesson 1. Each question contains 5 and the total is 50. You have 2-3 days time to complete this. But if you are aware of the rules then I think you might need just 30 minutes tops to complete this test. Answer carefully you'll get the full marks. Good Luck -- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 14:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

1.) Q- Would you consider FOX News to be a reliable source for information on MSNBC? What about for information on Sarah Palin?
 * A:-FOX News is not reliable for news on Sarah Palin,as it is likely to be biased in favour of her.Fox news might be reliable for information on MSNBC,as it won't have undue bias in it's favour.
 * As I knew MSNBC is a competitor of Fox. So Fox could give false informations about MSNBC. Your thinking about Sarah Palin is right. So 3.5/5

2.) Q- A "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the newspaper's stance on world hunger. Would this be a reliable source?
 * A:-No.It has not been published in the main paper itslelf,has not passed the editorial litmus paper,and can not be considered to have been made in any official or published capacity.So,it cannot be considered as a reliable source.
 * ✅ Right. 5/5

3.) Q - The Washington Times has published a cartoon which you believe is clearly racist. Can you include this as an example of racism on the newspaper's article? What about on the racism article?
 * A:-No.It is not published by a third-party independent publishing house-it falls under the category of user-generated content like personal blogs,which(exception-if the authour is an established expert on the topic) are not to be considered as reliable sources.
 * ✅ You are right. But remember one thing. Cartoons are hardly considered as racist. But not worry. 5/5

4.) Q- You are writing about Goa Temple (I've made that up. It's not real) but don't find any reliable sources about that article. But in Goa it's very famous. What'll you do in that time?
 * A:-I won't put that in Wikipedia.If it is so famous,surely there must be a book about it.I will simply dig up some Goa-related books by independent publishers,and see if there is any reference to Goa Temple,and use that as a citation in my article.
 * ✅ Yes if it is famous you'll find a book. But if you don't find you'll not create it. 5/5

5.) You create a page on your sandbox about Politics in South Sudan. You go back a couple of days later, and find it has been copied, and created by another user. Is this right? Explain.
 * A:-It is perfectly allowed.My content is freely licensed under CC-BY-SA.
 * ✅ Of Course. 5/5

6.) Q- You find a reliable article that says Indians are more likely to be older early than Chinese people and Chinese people are more likely to get AIDS than Indians. You find another reliable article that says Indians are Democratic and Chinese people are Socialists. Can you include information that says Democratics are more likely to get older early and socialists are more likely to get AIDS anywhere on Wikipedia?
 * A:-No.Most importantpoint-that will fall under original research,and a secondary point-it is better used as an example on the article on Logical Fallacies.
 * ✅ Yes it'll fall under original research. 5/5

7.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue right? An editor doesn't agree - he says it is bronze, do you need a source?
 * A:-Depends on the context.E.g.:The sky viewed from the ISS will be black.But you should not do such things to cast doubts upon well established theories and procedures(like what creationists try to do the evolution textbooks:something like that-sorry if I can't explain properly).
 * ✅ Yes sky is black from space. But you do not need source for this type of things. Also remember in ancient times as I know people used to say that sky is bronze. If someone says now you need to revert is as AGF. There's also policies like WP:BLUE and WP:NOTBLUE which is conflicted. But you can add to avoid a conflict. Here I'm now doing AGF. 5/5

8.) Q- One editor thinks that Diego Maradona is the greatest player in football and wants to say so on Maradona's Wikipedia article. Another editor disagrees and argues that the article should claim that Maradona is actually the second-best, because Pele is better. Who is right?
 * A:-No.The maximum that can be done is to link their statistics,with appropriately referenced sources.
 * ✅ Right you are. 5/5

9.) You get a book autographed by J.K. Rowling at a book fair in Manchester, so edit her page saying where she was and what she was doing. Is this right? Explain
 * A:-No.No news source will published this(what to speak of a relible,third party source).So,it is unverifiable.
 * You are right, but not fully. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. So you should not add this entry. 2.5/5

10.) Q- Would you object to the "about us" section on say Burger King's website being used as a citation in its article? (Hint: see WP:SELFSOURCE)
 * A:-As long as it is not the only source(other sources are there to verify what is there on that page),and to the extent the "about" page is strictly factual,to that extent that section can be used.
 * ✅ I don't understand you answer clearly but I understand it's passable. 5/5

Result (Theoretical)
Now here's the final result. I said that every question will contain 10, but I have converted that to 5. So the full mark is 50 I would let you pass if you scored 85% marks. But you scored 92% marks. It's great. You are really improving. Go on like this.

Practical
Now nothing is perfect without practical. So you must do some practical work. Find 10 articles which breaches these policy. You don't need to add tags to articles now. Just put the diffs here and tell me why it breaches the policy. I'll tell you about taggings, deletions in lesson 3-4. So wait until that. You have 2 days to complete this test. (Search Special:NewPagesFeed or Special:NewPages)

Test (Practical)
1.)Malda Medical College and Hospital
 * Why:-Inadequate sources.
 * ✅ Yes. 5/5

2.)Midnapore Medical College and Hospital
 * Why:-Apart from inadequate sources,it is not written from a neutral point of view.
 * ✅ Good. 5/5

3.)Craftscape
 * Why:-It is a clear copyright violation.Even if it wasn't,it does not have enough notability.Also—it lacks a neutral point of view
 * ✅ Right. 5/5

4.)Ridgeview, Ottawa
 * Why:-There is no independent secondary reliable coverage.This article is simply original research.Also WP:MILL.
 * ✅ I would grant you 6 cause you've answered just great and answered fully. 6/5

5.)Deepa Bhaskar
 * Why:-Lacks NPOV.
 * ✅ 5/5

6.)SCAN IT
 * Why:-It isn't notable enough-no independent,third party coverage.And no,blog posts (usually)do not count for notability,as anyone can start up a blog,or create a website.
 * ✅ Magnificent and Superb. 6/5

7.)Saint Luke's Health System
 * Why:-This is clearly a copyright infringement,which cannot be included in Wikipedia.
 * ✅ Full Marks. 5/5

8.)Specialty retailer of Private label Apparel
 * Why:-It looks more like an advertisement than an article which deserves to be in an encyclopaedia.
 * ✅ Absolutely right. 5/5

9.)Kendriya vidyalaya no 1 gandhi nagar jammu
 * Why:-It is nothing but blatant promotion.Also,it is a copyright violation.
 * ✅ Yes deleting reason is almost same. 5/5

10.)Public relations department of General post office, mumbai
 * Why:-It is not notable in itself,included stuff irrelevant to the article.The best thing which can be done is this:Delete the article,and merge it as a point in the article about the GPO in Mumbai.
 * ✅ Yes it should be merged. 5/5

Result (Practical)
Now here's the result for practical of lesson 1. You have achieved 52 out of 50. Superb! It's 104%. But I'll make a combine result, Which means Theoretical + Practical. Down there is the result for practical.

Result (Lesson 1)
Here's the final result. You have achieved 46 out of 50 in Theoretical and 52 out of 50 in practical. The summation of this is 98 out of 100! Wao! 98% marks! You are doing awesome. Go on like this.

Award
This is your award for completing lesson 1.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 15:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You've successfully completed the first lesson. I'll warn you, that was the easiest one. Now, let's move on to some bigger and better things, shall we? Lesson 2 is below:

Wikiquette
WP:Wikiquette - or the etiquette of Wikipedia is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different wikipedia pages you've made.

I'm just going to highlight some of the important Wikiquette items that you should try and remember. It may help you out.
 * Assume good faith - This is fundamental and I'll be going over it again in dispute resolution. Editors here are trying to improve the encyclopedia. Every single member of the community. EVERY ONE. If you read a comment or look at an edit and it seems wrong in some way, don't just jump straight in. Try and see it from the other editors point of view, remembering that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia.
 * Sign your talk posts with four tildes ~ . The software will stick your signature and timestamp in, allowing the correct attribution to your comment.
 * Try and keep to threading, replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, : . I cover more about this in my basics of markup language lesson - let me know if you'd like to take it. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.


 * Don't forget to assume good faith
 * There are a lot of policies and guidelines, which Wikipedians helpfully point you to with wikilinks. Their comments may seem brusque at first, but the linked document will explain their point much better than they may be able to.
 * Be polite, and treat others as you would want to be treated. For example, if someone nominated one of the articles you created for deletion, I'm sure you'd want to know about it, so if you are doing the nominating make sure you leave the article creator a notification.
 * Watch out for common mistakes.
 * Did I mention that you should assume good faith?
 * Comment on the edits. Not the editor. I'll cover this more in dispute resolution.

About this lesson
Like the previous lesson you need to pass a Pre-test in this lesson too. Do you have any question? Let me know when you are ready.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 13:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ready Guru-45 (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you'll hardly need practical test for this lesson. So in this lesson there's no practical test.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 13:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Pre-Test
Here's your pre-test. It contains 5 Questions. Each Question contains 10 Marks. The total is 70. I'll let you pass if you get 60-65 marks. Good Luck.

1.) You are fixing a mistake in Payari which I've created. You think my writing style is bad I need to improve it. Now will you write it in the edit summary that I need to improve?
 * A:-Yes,also explaining more clearly where the mistakes in the article are in the edit summary which I will be making.
 * No you should not right int he edit summary that I need to improve. Don't make personal remarks about an editor in edit summary. It's in WP:CIVIL. You should message me in my talk page about this. The other part is fine. 5/10

2.) What to do you think is Assuming Good Faith?
 * A:-Unless there is evidence that shows advice,I will assume that all users are working for the benefit of Wikipedia.In criticism,editors must not accuse others of personal intentions without good evidence.
 * ✅ Yes you are right. 10/10

3.) There are some policies in Wikipedia. One user created India. He thinks this policies are stupido, foul etc. etc. Is it right to place a debate in Talk:India for this policy discussion? Why?
 * A:-No.It violates the principle of "Assume Good Faith" by pointless name-calling.
 * ✅ Yes you are right. 10/10

4.) User:Example is warning you and giving you some advice cause your editing is not well. But you don't like his tone. What will you do then? Why?
 * A:-I'll try to improve my writing style.What I will NOT do is to turn on him with personal attacks.
 * ✅ You are right. Many newbies don't do this. But you can tell Example politely that you didn't like his tone. 10/10

5.) Bangladesh Premier League is having a important discussion for improvement on it's talk page. You are the only one who is answering questions. But it's all about BPL. Can you move it to your talk page? Why?
 * A:-It is not at all advisable.The BPL talk page is for discussion on how to improve that specific article,and my talk page is where other Wikipedians can contact me for in relation to my editing.Long story short-moving it to my talk page will be disruptive.
 * ✅ Yes. But you can move it to your talk page if it's becoming personal. 10/10

6.) User:K to the power 16 is a newbie. He makes mistakes often. You have reverted two of his edits. Will you scold him? Why?
 * A:-No.It is against the policy of Assuming Good Faith.
 * ✅ Also there's saying that Don't bite the newcomers. But you are right. 10/10.

7.) An editor who has a low edit count seems awfully competent with templates. Should he be reported as a possible WP:SOCK?
 * A:-No.There is copious documentation about Wikipedia available online(eg:Wikipedia-the missing manual),and he/she might have learnt about it while editing as an ip address,or from a friend,or has observed the disccusions and how templates are used carefully.
 * ✅ Right. 10/10

Result (Pre-test)
You've passed the pre-test successfully. Here's the result. Now read these topics more carefully and clearly for one day. I'll submit the main test tomorrow. Good luck.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 13:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Test
Now here's your test. As this lesson has just nothing with practical, so you'll have a 100 marks theoretical test. There's 10 questions. Each question contains 10 marks. You need to get at least 80-85 marks to complete this lesson. Good Luck.-- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 14:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

1.) Explain how you would deal with this scenario using specifics: You are working in New Page Patrol and come across a new page that, though it's content is fine, has a few minor formatting issues. The page is three minutes old. You fix the format issues on the page. A few minutes later, you get a nasty note on your talk page which states that you caused the new editor, who created the page, an edit conflict by performing your few minor corrections. He was unaware of how to correct an edit conflict, and therefore lost everything he was trying to do. He even goes so far as to start an AN/I discussion about how you're incompetent and should butt out of his editing. What specific steps would you take?
 * A:-I would politely explain that I was only trying to fix the formatting on the page and apologise for his loss of text.Also,I would point out to him Help:Edit conflict
 * ✅ Absolutely right. No problem. 10/10

2.) Suppose you are reverting vandalism at John Abraham. You reverted that an edit as vandalism which was made by User:Jibraltar9985618. But that was a good edit. So Jibraltar comes to your talk page and reminding you about your mistake. But you think his tone isn't nice. Will you still ask for apology? Also what will you do about that "bad tone"?
 * A:-I will still apoplogise,as it was my mistake.About that "bad tone",I will simply politely tell him that it is not to be used in Wikipedia.
 * ✅ Yes. 10/10

3.) You are continuously making mistakes, also your works aren't appreciated as they are mistakes. You are getting warnings too. But you are going too fast, also these warnings making you angry. What will you do in this state? Will you still edit?
 * A:-No.I will be polite,apologise,and practise in the Sandbox(so that I make less mistakes).
 * Right you are. But in this state you should take a break. That'll be good for both WP and You. I took once. But no worry. You are right too. 8/10

4.) English is User:Titi53John's second language. He can't speak English nicely. That's why he makes mistake in writing English. Will you talk about his disability or his edits? Also will you tell him that he doesn't understand English? At last will you criticize him? Why?
 * A:-I will only talk about his edits.I will tell him about his disablity only if he produces sentences which can't be understood at all.And no,I won't make comments on his disablity;it violates etiquette.
 * ✅ Okay. 10/10

5.) User:LokhnouBadshah is almost a vandal user. Now he has posted a message to your talk page which is surely a personal attack. How you'll handle this; rudely or politely?
 * A:-I'll address him politely.
 * ✅ Yeah. Good answer. I just wanted a one line answer. 10/10

6.) Suppose you are creating Jibon Drong. Where you'll put the External Links? example.com is reliable but not related to the article clearly. Will you add this as incline reference? Why?
 * A:-I will put the reference for the parts that are clearly relevant.
 * You haven't completed this question. I asked a question earlier Where you'll put the External Links'?
 * You haven't answered it. It's answer is generally under the reference section. Your second answer is right. So you get half. 5/10

7.) You want to write about you at Wikipedia. But you are not notable enough to be an article. Will you write about you? Where can you write about you?
 * A:-I will not:when I am notable,there will be an article about me at Wikipedia.
 * ✅ Again you haven't completed. But this time it's okay. Yes. you'll not right about you. If you are a user of Wiki then you can write about you in your userpage. For the IP's I don't think they have userpage. Anyway the scenario was about you. So you should write about you in your userpage if you are non-notable. 9/10

8.) Suppose you have removed contents from Talk:India without archiving it. Is it right? Then User:LauandKodu watch's this. The wiki relation between you and him is slightly problematic. He is criticizing you for this. You too are criticizing him on a angry mind. Is it right? What is the best solution to stop this criticizing or waring? Would you forgive him for criticizing you in Wiki? (It is a technical question. It contains 5 rules. If you are able to write about 4-5, I'll give you full marks. If you are able to write about 3 then you'll get 7, if you are able to tell about 2 then I'll give you 5 if you are able to tell about 1 then I'll give you 3)
 * A:-


 * No,lengthy talk pages should be archived,not have their contents removed. Okay.
 * Incivility and personal attacks are not for talk pages.  Okay.
 * Also,talk pages are meant to discuss the content of the article,not the personalities of editors. -- I don't think it's needed. This battle is going on in your talk page.
 * I would forgive him for his criticizing me on Wikipedia. Okay.
 * Again you haven't answer a question. What is the best solution to stop this criticizing or waring. It's answer is You should say sorry and stop responding to his criticizing. Still if it isn't stopping then you can warn that user for personal attack. But generally after the first step it's cut....
 * I have found my answer. But for that incompletion I'm cutting 2. 8/10

9.) Have a look at the conversation below:

Well, the Passat lover clearly loves his Passat, but who is he replying to? In

9a.) Position A?
 * A:-To Freddie.
 * No. Passat lover is replying to Rods's Mate's question Like What? 0/5

9b.) Position B?
 * A:-To Jane.
 * No. This time it's Rod. What's the best car in the world. 0/5
 * Total is 0/10

10.) Suppose Mong Chi is a short article. It has just 2 lines but with that 2 lines it can describe that article partially. It has also 3 reliable sources. Should the article get deleted? Why? Also the user who created that article knows how to edit well and does good works. But he has just 300+ edits which is pretty much less than you. Will you still honor him? Why?
 * A:-If there is any possibility of expanding the article with the given three(or more) reliable sources,it should not be deleted:rather,it should be expanded.Also,if I think about his edit count rather than the quality of his edits,I am suffering from WP:ITIS.So,I'll honour him.
 * ✅ absolutely brilliant. 10/10

Result (Test)
You've passed the test successfully. Here's the result.

Result (Lesson 2)
Here's the final result. You have achieved 80 out of 100 in the test. Which means you've achieved 80% Marks. It's pass mark and you've passed. But you need to be more careful about this lesson. You are going to the next lesson but I'll ask you to learn this lesson more clearly. --P r a t y y a  (  শারদীয় শুভেচ্ছা   )  12:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

No matter how well you edit Wikipedia and no matter how obviously helpful your changes may seem, if you participate here on a regular basis, you are very likely to eventually end up in a dispute. This becomes more and more probable as you get into the more drama–filled areas of Wikipedia. The higher the number of page views and the more controversial the topic, the more likely the area is going to be considered contentious.

I'm going to go through some of the different methods of dispute resolution that we have on Wikipedia. They are all covered at the dispute resolution page and the tips there are really worth taking.

Simple Resolution
If you find yourself in a dispute, I don't necessarily expect you to back down. If you believe you are right, it's understandable for you to want to stand firm. Nevertheless, you should still attempt to resolve the dispute. Here are some basic dispute resolution practices:

First of all, assume good faith. Assume that the person you are in a dispute with is also trying to improve the encyclopedia. Given them the benefit of the doubt that they are not trying to deliberately cause problems. Try to see things from their point of view and consider if perhaps you can both come to a compromise.

Keep calm. Although it might seem urgent to you, a decision on the dispute can wait until the discussion is complete. If you try to fight by editwarring to keep your preferred version, it is very possible that you will get nowhere and face a block. So, instead follow Bold, Revert, Discuss - one editor makes a Bold edit, which they feel improves the encyclopedia. A second editor Reverts the edit as they disagree. The two (or more) editors Discuss the matter on the talk page until they come to an agreement or proceed along Wikipedia's dispute resolution process.

When it comes to the discussion, I want you to try and stay stay focused on the different arguments and their merits, not on the people involved in the dispute. You've heard the phrase "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit" right? Attacks on the character of an editor are never going to help anything. If an editor is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind - stay focused on the editor's argument and respond to that.

If you think about what you are saying and how the editor is likely to respond, you realize that you have a choice. Your comment will generally go one of two ways: 1) it will address the editor's argument and put forward a counterargument which the opposing editor can understand; or 2) It will not address the situation, thereby infuriating the other editor and escalating the drama.

Accusing other editors of making personal attacks, acting in bad faith, practicing ownership, committing vandalism or doing any number of other negative things will fall into the second choice from the paragraph above. If the other editor(s) are actually guilty of wrongdoing, don't make ugly accusations. Instead follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process and try to keep a cool head. If needs be, get up and have a cup of tea. Play a game of racketball. Don't be unwilling to step away when you realize you are beginning to get riled up. Otherwise, you may wind up typing something you'll regret.

Wikipedia dispute resolution process
If the simple techniques don't work (and you'd be amazed at how often they do, if you try them), Wikipedia does have some methods of dispute resolution.

Assistance
If you want someone to talk to, but not necessarily have intervene, there is an WP:Editor Assistance noticeboard. The editors there are experienced and can offer suggestions about how to resolve the dispute.

Third opinion
You can get an uninvolved editor to step in and give an opinion on a content dispute. WP:3O has instructions on how to request a third editor to come in and discuss the situation. Another way to get a third opinion is to look at the article talk page and see which projects are associated with the article. Then, go to the talk page of one or more of those projects and get some "expert" advice. Finally, you could leave a message at a relevant noticeboard - WP:SEEKHELP

Mediation
If the issue won't go away, even after a couple of people have weighed in, you can try Mediation. There are two processes here: Informal (WP:MEDCAB) and formal (WP:RfM). The editors at each specialize in sorting debates.

Request for Comment
You can use WP:RfC to draw community discussion to the page. You are likely to get a larger section of the community involved that you would if you tried a 3O request. There is also an option to Request comment on a user. This is rarely necessary and should not be taken lightly. Only after almost every other route of dispute resolution has been taken should this happen - and it requires at least two editors having the same problem with one editor in order for the request to be certified.

Arbitration
I really hope you'll never have to try this. It's the last resort. The community has elected it's most trusted and willing volunteers to preside over the most complicated cases. Have a read of WP:ARBCOM if you like, but do your best to avoid ending up there.

Reports
If an editor is acting badly, there are a few boards that you can go to in order to get some help.

Remember: you could be wrong!
You could be acting against consensus! However, as long as you are open to the possibility and have been focusing on the disputed content instead of the disputing editors, there's nothing wrong with disagreeing. Just make sure you are aware that at some point you might have to realize you are flogging a dead horse.

Any questions?
Questions about any of the above?


 * Understood.Guru-45 (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Test
I thought about giving a pre-test to you. But I think you've read enough to omit pre-test. SO here I'm directly giving you the test. It contains 100 marks. If you get 85 (or more) I'll get you passed. Good luck. -- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 14:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

1.) What do you think is Dispute Resolution? Explain in your words.
 * A:-Dispute resolution can be said to be the settlement of disputes between two or more editors (of their differing views on the articles they are involved in editing)for the benefit of Wikipedia.
 * ✅ 10/10

2.) In your own words, explain each "level" of dispute resolution (e.g., third opinion, mediation, etc.).
 * A:-


 * Assistance:Asking a senior editor's advice on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in a way that will be relevant to the situation the editors are facing.This is usually done at WP:ASSIST.
 * Third Opinion:This means getting an uninvolved editor to resolve the dispute.(It is one of the less formal processes).It is done in the one of the following ways.
 * Going to WP:3O
 * Going to the talkpages of the projects associated with the article
 * Going to the relevant noticeboard.E.g.:-Going to WP:RSN for a dispute regarding reliable sources.
 * Okay, but not fully. You've missed something like Arbitration, Request for Comment, Meditation. So I'm giving 5/10

3.) Suppose Kavle Aurora is an article which is biased and inacuarate. What will you do here? Request for deletion or improve? Why? What'll you do if you don't know how to fix a problem of that page? Explain in your own words.
 * A:-I would improve the article to remove bias as far as possible.If the article is nothing but blatant self-promotion or does not meet notability criteria,etc,only then I will give a Request for Deletion.

It depends on what the problem is.For sources,I'll seek help at WP:RSN.For something that is not exaclty clear or the article has multiple issues of various types with it,I will go to WP:DRN
 * ✅ Brilliantly answered. 10/10

4.) What do you think is Negotiation? Explain in your own word and not too short.
 * A:-In WP:NEGOTIATION,editors attempt to find a solution which mentions all the points of view and issues raised in regards to the editing of the content or style of the article,so that a solution can be reached that adheres to Wikipedia's principles.
 * ✅ Yeah. 10/10

5.) Two editors are in a Content dispute. Editor A adds something they feel helps the encyclopedia, Editor B reverts, Editor A re-adds, Editor B reverts again. Two part question:
 * 5a) Is this edit warring?
 * A:-Yes.
 * '''2.5/2.5
 * 5b) How should they resolve this dispute?
 * A:-They should discuss the changes they are trying to make to the article on that article's talk page and try to reach a reasonable consensus on the the article's content based on Wikipedia's policies.If that doesn't work,they can involve a third,uninvoled editor or Mediation or an RfC or ArbCom.(The last two should be used only for very complex cases.)
 * Excellent! 2.5/2.5
 * So ✅ 5/5

6.) Imagine you are participating in an Articles for deletion discussion. You post your opinion and let's just say you think the article should be deleted. The creator of the article replies to your edit calling you an incompetent, intellectual snob who has no right to edit Wikipedia. How would you handle the situation?
 * A:-I'll simply,appropriately invoking sources and adhering to Wikipedia's policies,will point out that the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards.No reason to call him names or anything like that.If he continues to harass me needlessly,then I will try mediation.Sill not working:file a report at the Administrators Noticeboard.Still no effect?Will do an RfC,and lastly to the ArbCom only in very serious cases.
 * ✅ Yeah. But in this kind of situation you should stay calm. Whatever s/he says you should not make an angry reply. You should do all the work calmly. If you cannot then left it to other users. Cause this can start a dispute. Anyway you are right. 10/10

7.) Suppose you are in a dispute with User:N Srinivashan. He is getting urgent. Is he right? What'll you do in this kind of situation? Will you hurry? Why?
 * A:-He is not right.I will discuss the relevant issues on the relevant talkpages.I won't hurry—hurrying won't help in reaching proper consensus for the article.If it becomes more serious,I will go for the processes as I mentioned in a previous question.
 * ✅ 10/10

8.) Now you are in a dispute with User:MS Dhoni. Only you two are in dispute. Will WP:3 be good for this dispute? Generally where you'll go to solve a dispute or which place will be a good starting point among the other dispute resuolution procedures?
 * A:-WP:3 is probably a bit too early.The article's talk page is the first place to go to for dispute resolution.Or relevant noticeboards.
 * ✅ Yeah. 5/5

9.) Suppose User:Pratyya Ghosh, User:Jonathan Trott and User:Guru-45's dispute became serious. What steps should be taken in this urgent situation? Where this dispute should not be taken?
 * A:-First,mediation can be tried.If the issues still persist,the editors can go to WP:ANEW..If they are still persistent,an RfC can be filedWP:RfC/U.This dispute should not be taken to Arbcom immediately—unless it is really serious and has been continuing for a long time.
 * ✅ 10/10

10.) At last if a dispute isn't stopping after all the steps taken, what'll you do at last? Why?
 * A:-I will go to the Arbitration committee WP:ARBCOM,but only at last.Because that commitee has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve.
 * ✅ Good job. 5/5

11.) Suppose mine, yours and other 2 editors dispute has been identified as a dispute which involves user conduct, What steps should be taken?
 * A:-If mediation,and all other previous steps have failed,then an RfC can be filed at WP:RfC/U.If it becomes too complicated,then only to WP:ARBCOM
 * ✅ Yeah. 5/5

12.) What do you think? When meditation will be useful in a dispute?
 * A:-Mediation is useful for editors in a dispute on the content of an article.It is not useful for complaints about the behavoiur of other editors-those are best dealt with at the relevant noticeboards.Mediation equally is not suited to parties who are disagreeing "for the sake of disagreeing" or who have no intention of compromising or discussing the thinking behind their positions.
 * ✅ Good. 10/10

Result (Test)
You've passed the test successfully. Here's the result.

Result (Lesson 3)
Here's the final result. You have achieved 95 out of 100 in the test. Which means you've achieved 95% Marks. It's more than pass mark and you've passed. -- Pr at yya  (Hello!) 04:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism
What we're going to do now is get you started with some basic vandalism patrols. This is by no means something you will be obligated to do as an editor, however it is something you should know how to do due to the high risk of vandalism on Wikipedia. Should you ever become an administrator, you will likely be expected to deal with vandalism in some respect.

To start off, let's get some background. Wikipedia is, as you know, a wiki, meaning anyone can edit virtually any page. This is both a blessing and a curse, however, as while it does allow a wide range of information to be added and shared, it also allows people with less than benevolent intentions to come in and mess around with stuff. It requires a fair amount of work during every hour of every day to ensure that this vandalism does not run rampant and destroy the project. Fortunately, with a near-endless supply of volunteers across the world, this doesn't really cause a problem. The addition of various tools help aid our cause and make the "reversion", or removal, of vandalism happen within minutes (sometimes seconds).

What we define vandalism as is "an edit which is delibrately attempting to harm the encyclopedia" to an article or other page. Most commonly, these are pretty blatant - replacing a whole page or section with curse words, simply removing entire sections, and so forth. Occasionally, it's less obvious, like changing key words in a section to completely alter the meaning. Basically, anything that can't be helpful at all to the article should be considered vandalism, however you should always remember to assume good faith for questionable cases.

The most commonly used, and arguably the most critical tool in this respect, is Special:RecentChanges. Recent Changes is a special page that lists every edit made across the project within the last few minutes. You can find a link to it in the toolbar to the left. The page is formatted similarly to a page's history, with a few differences. Here's how a standard entry generally looks: So that you can know all the terminology (which in some cases will be used across the site), I'm going to explain what all of this means. Feel free to skip this if you've already clicked the links.
 * (diff) (hist) . . Shigeru Miyamoto‎; 14:32 . . (+28) . . 201.152.102.192 (Talk) (→ Competition with Sony and Microsoft )
 * 1) A "diff" is the difference between two revisions. Wikipedia has a special feature that allows you to compare revisions to see exactly what was changed. This is particularly useful when on vandal patrol, as this is the best thing available to tell you if the edit was or was not vandalism. Clicking on the link above will only take you to the help page on diffs, unfortunately, however an actual diff link will bring you to a screen that looks like this one, an actual diff of another article. Content removed appears in red text in a yellow box on the left; content added appears in red text in a green box on the right.
 * 2) The "hist" link will bring you to the page's history. You can click on the "hist" link above to get to the help page for this feature. A page's history lists all edits ever made to a page, something which is required under the terms of the GFDL, Wikipedia's licensing.
 * 3) The next link is the article that the edit was made to.
 * 4) The time stamp will indicate when the edit was made. The time will appear in your time zone, as you have it defined in your Special:Preferences. Note that this is different from signature timestamps, which are always in UTC/GMT time.
 * 5) The green or red number after the timestamp will tell you how much was added or removed to the article in the edit. A green "+" number shows the number of bytes added to the article - a red "-" number indicates the number removed. In general, the number of bytes is equal to the number of characters, however this is not always the case: Certain special characters can contain more than one byte, and templates can completely mess this number up. Templates will be covered in another lesson later on, however you will be using some in your patrols later. This number will be in bold if a very large number of characters were removed, which is usually a good indicator of vandalism.
 * 6) The next part is the name of the user who made the edit, which will link to their user page. In this case, an IP address made the edit, so the link will instead go to their contributions. Since most vandalism comes from these anonymous editors, this serves as another convenience to those on patrol. The user name is followed by a link to their talk page.
 * 7) The last part of a RC report is the edit summary. When editing a section of an article, the title of that section will automatically be included in the edit summary, as you see above. Other special edit summaries include "Replaced page with..." and "Blanked the page". In general, these last two are dead giveaways for vandalism edits, however you will occasionally see an editor blank his own user or user talk page, so be careful about that.

Now that you know how to use Recent Changes, I want you to and find some vandalism edits. I don't want you to remove the edit yourself just yet - we'll get to this shortly and chances are, another editor or bot will beat you to it. So before you go on, go to Special:RecentChanges and find three vandalism edits. So that I can check your work and we can discuss things, I want you to copy the links to the diffs of these three edits into the brackets you see below. (This is most easily done by copying the URL from your address bar while you're viewing the diff.)

IMPORTANT WARNING: Due to the very nature of vandalism on Wikipedia, it is possible you will encounter something that will offend you. I take this time to point out Wikipedia's Content Disclaimer, which basically says that you can find just about anything on here and it's not WP's fault. While you may find something offensive in your searches and subsequent vandal patrols, it is best to simply brush it off and not take it to heart. Later on, when you are actually reverting vandalism, it is possible that your own user pages will be vandalized. Here the same thing applies - ignore and simply remove it. I do not tell these things to scare you, or to imply that it will happen. I am simply pointing out that it is possible, although exceedingly rare. In many cases, these attempts to attack you are in fact somewhat amusing. If it occurs, just remember how intellectually superior you clearly are to the vandal and be glad that you actually have a life. Please add your signature here ( ~ ) to confirm that you have read and understand this warning: Understood.Guru-45 (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Diffs

 * https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=590605280&oldid=590605210
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eye_color&diff=590604893&oldid=589327478
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/?diff=590606129&oldid=590599313

How to Revert
Well, If you're using anything but Internet Explorer, I suggest using Twinkle. You can turn it on by going to My Preferences --> Gadgets --> Twinkle. saving your preferences and then holding shift while pressing the refresh button. Suddenly you have new things to play with! Each diff gives you 3 options to roll back - more can be found at WP:TWINKLE

Vandalism and warnings
You occasionally get the repeat vandal. The vandal who is here, not because he is bored and has nothing better to do, but because he has a singular purpose of wreaking as much havoc as he can before he gets blocked. These vandals go in and remove entire sections of text, or replace entire pages with gibberish repeatedly. Even after you've given them a warning, they ignore it and continue. It is for these vandals we have multiple levels of warnings. In general, you will escalate up those levels from 1 to 4 as the vandalism continues. If it's nothing clearly malicious (see below), you should always assume that it was a careless mistake (in short, assume good faith, one of Wikipedia's foundation principles), and just let them know that you fixed it. As it continues, it becomes more and more obvious that they intend to cause trouble, so the warnings get more and more stern. Occasionally, you'll get the vandal, who despite all logical reasoning, continues to vandalize after that final warning. When this happens, we have no choice left but to block them. Since we're not administrators, we lack this ability, so we must report them to those with that power at Administrator intervention against vandalism. That page provides complete instructions on how to file a proper report. If you are using Twinkle, you can report a user to this page by clicking the "arv" tab at the top of any of their user pages. Usually, an administrator will take action within minutes, but until that happens, you need to continue watching the vandal's contributions and reverting any further vandalism. The Three-Revert Rule does not apply when dealing with obvious vandals. I should also note here that many vandals will remove warning template from their talk page. While this may appear as vandalism, and for a time was treated as such, it is not necessary to re-add these warnings, and no warning should be issued for the blanking of the talk page. While these templates do serve as an easily accessible record for other vandal fighters, their main purpose is to alert the vandal to the consequences of their actions. Removing the templates is considered a way to acknowledge that they have been read.

Then you get the belligerent vandal. This is very similar to the last kind, although they actually take the time to read the warnings (or are able to) and take offense. They go by the logic that anyone can edit Wikipedia, so who are you to tell them that they can't edit in this particular way? To make this rather annoying point, they will leave an offensive message on your talk page, or more often simply add some sort of vandalism to your main user page, which you generally won't notice for several more minutes, or days, if someone else reverts it first.

When this happens, you just have to take it in stride, and remember that you are far more intelligent than them because you actually stop to read information instead of blanking it away, and thus the human race still has some hope for salvation. Just revert it, and slap them a uw-npa warning of whatever severity you deem necessary. The last version got a uw-npa4im warning, an "only warning" for the most severe offenses, and I still reported him straight off anyway.

The final version is the malicious vandal. These are hardest to notice, because their edits aren't immediately recognizable. They will seem to be improving the article at first glance, when really they're replacing true information with false, often libelous parodies. Others replace valid links with shock sites, or add hidden comments with offensive information. This last version doesn't actually appear in the article, but is there waiting when someone comes to edit it. A similar type of vandal, the "on wheels" vandal, is here for the sole purpose of destroying the encyclopedia. The namesake, User:Willy on Wheels, replaced dozens of pages with the text " has been vandalized by User:Willy on Wheels!" The BASEPAGENAME variable is a magic word that displays the name of the page. After his blocking, Willy continued to create hundreds of sockpuppets for the same purpose. This sort of vandal is clearly here to vandalize, as such actions are not accidental. With them, you can safely assume bad faith right from the start and slam them with a more severe warning. No, you don't have to escalate in all cases - if there is no doubt that the edit was made with bad intentions, you may start with a higher level than normal. The "4im" level is designed specifically for cases of severe vandalism, and is an only warning to cease and desist.

Keep an eye out for all of these vandals, and keep that information in mind when stopping them. There is a full customized range of warning templates to be found at WP:UTM - use the most specific one possible, so that the vandal, if he did make a simple mistake, has the links at hand to learn from his mistake and improve. Any questions, please put them on the adoption talk page.