It is approximately 1:32 PM where this user lives.
A few questions for you to start off this adoption:
1) Would you prefer to be called Faiz7412, Faiz, or something else?
I prefer to be called Faiz(it rhymes with 'jazz'). If you're wondering, 7=F, 4=A, 1=I, 2=Z,
2) What is your goal in contributing to Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is considered world's most reliable encyclopedia. I'd like to give back to the world, after having learned so much from it. Also, I kept noticing inaccuracies on some wiki pages. And I want Wikipedia to be free of inaccuracies because a lot of people rely on it. People in my life say that I have good research skills, Wikipedia will test their assumption for me. It will surely help me learn more, be humble and also contribute to the world's knowledge while I'm at it.
3) What time zone do you live in?
At present, it's UTC+5.5 but after a year, that can change.
4) What do you expect to get out of this mentorship?
It's new for me. And I'm the kind of person who has zero expectations in all aspects of life. Just kidding. I expect to grow, learn the ins and outs of Wikipedia, and also to make some intelligent friends :)
I have lots of images that could be used to represent me. But unfortunately, I can't find their exact nature of the licence, so I can't use them now. However, I may design something original to represent me in about six to seven months. Faiz7412 (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@Faiz7412: Awesome! If you want to pick a temporary image before you design your own, you can probably find one at Wikimedia Commons, a free-use media repository. I'll put up the first lesson shortly. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
"Wikiquette" is a portmanteau of "Wikipedia" and "etiquette". It is something that you may already be familiar with, depending how much reading around the different Wikipedia pages you've done.
Threading is an organized way of replying to comments by adding an additional indentation, represented by a colon, :. When you're responding to something I write, you use one colon. When I then respond to you, you use two colons. When you then respond to me, you use three colons. When you want to respond to the original post, then you just go back to using one colon. Think of it this way: whatever you want to respond to, preface it with one more colon than what it had already. Talk pages should something like this - Have a read of WP:THREAD to see how this works.
How's the soup? --[[User:John]]
:It's great!! --[[User:Jane]]
::I made it myself! --[[User:John]]
Let's move the discussion to [[Talk:Soup]]. --[[User:Jane]]
:I tend to disagree. --[[User:George]]
Avoid these mistakes which have been made by many an editor:
Don't create autobiographical articles or articles about someone close to you, company articles, dictionary-type articles (we have Wiktionary for that), or redundant articles. For the last one, it's easy to figure out if you're creating something redundant; just type in the search term into the search box and see if what comes up covers your topic.
Whenever you delete content, be sure you give an explanation as to why. Even if you revert vandalism, say that it's vandalism. Also, try not to delete valuable content just because it's poorly written and biased; instead, just rewrite it.
There are also Wikiquette rules for signatures. Some people like to customize their signature using CSS and other code. There are a few no-nos, though.
Do not copy another editor's signature. Even making it look somewhat like another editor's signature is wrong. Linking to someone else's user page on your signature is also a big mistake.
Don't make your signature too big. This can effect the way the surrounding text is displayed. Be sparing with your superscript and subscript, too. It can sometimes cause a similar problem. Don't make your signature too small, either, then we won't know who you are :) When you use different colors, make sure that color-blind people will still be able to read it without a problem.
Do not include images in your signature. It's wrong for a number of reasons, including server slowdown, distraction, comment displacement, and cluttering up the "File links" section every time you comment. You can use webdings or wingdings to get an image effect if you really want, because these are technically fonts and not images.
Keep your signatures short enough that they don't take up a whole line of text when you comment.
Make sure that your signature always links to at least your user page, talk page, and/or contributions page.
Don't include any external links at all or internal links that have no purpose to building the encyclopedia.
Assume good faith when approaching someone who has these problem signatures and be polite.
@Ana: Thanks! I completed this lesson. I want a clarification, it's mentioned:
"Don't use external links in places other than the external link section in an article"
This is referring to using the "<ref> </ref>" to list them under the "Notes" section for external articles, right?
PS: This is really exciting! Thank you so much! Faiz7412 (talk) 09:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Faiz7412: You're welcome :) I'm just as excited to teach you! In reference to the external links section: I'm actually referring to the section labeled "External links", like the ones at the end of Barack Obama or Local Initiatives Support Corporation. You can include links to sources under the "Notes" or "References", yes, but other external links, for example, one leading to the official website of the article's subject, go under the "External links" section instead of in the article text. The "External links" section is kind of like a "See also" section to pages outside Wikipedia. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
This is basically a very shortened version of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, so for more information about pictures, you can also take a look there.
Adding a picture to a Wikipedia page is relatively simple. To get just a plain image, you simply place two brackets (a bracket looks like this: [ ) to either side of a file name with the prefix "File:". If the picture you wanted was called "Snow crystals.png", this is what the coding would look like: [[File:Snow crystals.png]]
When adding an infobox (which you will learn more about when we go over templates; it's a box in an article that contains general information and, most of the time, an image) and you want to put a picture in, you find where it says "image=" and add it there, but without brackets or the prefix "File:" or "Image:". You do, however, add the suffix ".jpg", ".png", etc.
Cool lightning storm in Port-la-Nouvelle, southern FranceMost pictures you see in articles won't be plain. They will usually have a "thumbnail" on them, which just enables you to add a caption. To add a thumbnail to a picture, simply add "|thumb" after the file name and before the right brackets. For example, if I were to make the picture of a lightning storm on the right (called "Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg") into a thumbnail, I would put [[File:Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg|thumb]]. This would put a light gray box around the picture and a double rectangle icon () to the bottom right. You can add a caption by putting another pipe ( | ) after "|thumb" and before the right brackets and then putting what you want to caption it after the pipe. For example, to achieve the appearance to the right, you would put [[File:Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg|thumb|Cool lightning storm in Port-la-Nouvelle, southern France]].
Do not add a thumbnail to a picture in an infobox. To add a caption, there will generally be something that says "image caption=" underneath where it says "image=". That would, as it suggests, be where you put the caption.
When you add a thumbnail to an image, it automatically aligns to the right. If you do not add a thumbnail to it, you will have to put "|right" after the file name and before the right brackets. If you want it to align to the left, whether or not it is a thumbnailed image, you will add "|left" right before the right brackets. This will generally put it either right after the file name or right after "|thumb" depending on if you use it or not. It's important to make sure that not every image in an article is aligned to the right, as if they all are it can lead to a stack of images messing up the text placement.
If you add a thumbnail to an image, it will automatically be 220 pixels. The pixels count is the number of picture width, not length. To change the size, you put "|(# of pixels)px" before the right bracket and then set it to whatever size you want. It's always a good idea to use "show preview" button before saving to see how large the image is going to be. This button shows how your changes will look when you save them, and will help you figure out which pixel size that you would like to set the image to.
Sometimes an infobox will have a separate area for image size for you to type in the amount of pixels, e.g. 250px. Most don't, however. They will generally default to a certain size, but if you're unhappy with the default, you can always add "|250px" or whichever amount of pixels you want it to be, after the file name in the "image=" portion. For example, image = Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle.jpg|250px.
I thought we might as well cover this near the beginning. Do you have any questions? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
@Missionedit: I'm so sorry for responding so late! I've been into a lot of things recently and couldn't get the time to respond! Really sorry for that. I already went through this. Thanks for your lessons. I've run into circumstances which are leaving me no time to spend here. You can post the lessons I need to go through. I'll let you know once I complete them. Please don't wait. I'll let you know. Faiz7412 (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
@Faiz7412: Don't worry about it--good to know :) I'm on vacation this week so I'll post a lesson when I get back. ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
These are the five "pillars", or fundamental principles, of Wikipedia. I've reworded them a little from the original to further explain/simplify.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia incorporates various elements of reference materials such as encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not for advertising, propaganda, or social networking. It is also not a dictionary, newspaper, or collection of source documents; there are sister projects for this. The goal of Wikipedia is to form a comprehensive online encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
Wikipedia strives for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We present no such opinion as being "the truth" or "the right position" (in theory). Every allegation must be backed up by references, especially when concerning a controversial topic or a living person. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.
Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute.
Wikipedia is free for others to edit, use, modify, and distribute. No editor owns an article, so everything you write is free to be mercilessly edited and redistributed at will. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources.
Editors should treat each other with respect and civility.
Wikipedia has millions of editors who are bound to disagree on some topics. If a conflict arises, you should discuss your disagreement on the nearest talk page and remain level-headed without accusing. Just because another editor may be attacking you does not mean that you should to engage in similar behavior.
Wikipedia has no firm rules.
Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Their principles and spirit matter more than their literal wording, and nothing is carved in stone. Sometimes improving Wikipedia means making an exception to the rule. Be bold in your edits (but not reckless) and don't worry about making a mistake, as you can always fix it.
@Faiz7412: Any questions? Next we'll do a lesson on reliable sources; a very important aspect of Wikipedia. Also, feel free to ask questions about Wikipedia unrelated to our lessons :) ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
@Anastasia: No questions. Looking forward to the lessons on reliable resources. I'll surely ask you any unrelated questions if I have. :) Faiz7412 (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
For more information on this topic see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There will be test after this lesson just to make sure you understand it. The test shouldn't be too hard for you. If any specific questions do come up, we can do a lesson on it.
On Wikipedia, the word "source" can mean three different, interchangeable things: either a piece of work, the writer of the work, or the creator of the work. Therefore, a reliable source is a published material from a reliable publisher (such as a university), or an author who is known for the subject that they are covering, such as L. David Mech, a wolf expert, speaking about wolves, or a fiction author being interviewed about their own work. Or it could be a combination, like a book about wolves by L. David Mech published by the University of Chicago Press. And while a source may be considered reliable on one topic, it may not be on so with other topics. For instance, the book Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation by L. David Mech only talks about real wolves. While would be considered a reliable source when talking about wolf behaviors and conservation, it may not be the best authority for talking about Little Red Riding Hood :)
Self-published sources are considered unreliable because false information could be published this way. However, this rule doesn't apply to self-published sources talking about themselves. Let's say that Orson Scott Card wrote a post on his website about his inspiration for the Ender's Game series. Because it's coming straight from the horse's mouth, you could add that information in the section called "Creation and inspiration".
Mainstream news sources are generally considered reliable, like The New York Times. However, some of these news sources get information from Wikipedia, so it can get trapped in cyclic sourcing. Wikipedia cites an article that cites Wikipedia! Never cite a Wikipedia article in another mainspace Wikipedia article. Other sites that have an "anyone can edit" policy like Wikipedia are not considered reliable sources.
In addition, anything that is common knowledge (eg. the sky is blue) does not need to be sourced, just like in a reference paper. Saying that snow melts when it gets warm outside is not going to need a source.
@Anastasia: No questions. I'll ask myself if I have any. Yes, I enjoyed The Wikipedia Adventure! The implementation is good. Can't wait for the test! :) Faiz7412 (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
1.) Q- A friend just told you that Mitt Romney has been appointed Chancellor of Harvard University. Should you add this to Romney and/or Harvard's pages? Why or why not?
A- I think it'd be appropriate to add footer notes to both the pages as well as in the brief summary on the right.
N A friend is not considered a reliable source. Now, if you searched for a sources online and found reliable news articles confirming your friend's information, you could then add it to the article while citing those news sources you found.
2.) Q- The New York Times has published a cartoon as part of an article which you think is blatantly racist. Can you use this cartoon on Wikipedia to support the fact that the New York Times is a racist newspaper? (assuming the cartoon is freely licensed with no copyright restrictions)
A- If it's controversial, I'd think twice before making that move.
Y You never want to make an assertion in a article based on your own opinion. In this case, it is not appropriate to use this cartoon as evidence for NY Times being racist because only you think the cartoon is racist. If you found other reliable sources (journal articles, mainstream news sources, etc.) that accuse NY Times of being racist, this might be something you could add (eg. "The Guardian accused NYT of being racist because of this cartoon in this article ect. ect.)
3.) Q- You find an article claiming that socialists are more likely to get cancer than capitalists, but capitalists are more likely to get diabetes than socialists. Should you include this information on the socialist, capitalist, cancer, or diabetes pages?
A- Correlation doesn't imply causation. Period.
Y While you're not wrong about causation, the point is that this information is probably not something to be included in Wikipedia because it is very specific and not verifiable. This niche fact may still not be true and is not really relevant to the kind of general topic overviews that Wikipedia provides.
4.) Q- Would you consider Apple Inc. to be a reliable source for information on Microsoft? Why or why not?
A- No. Unless they are talking about exactly same technology and are working on the same side of the team.
Y While you are right in saying no, you haven't explained your reasoning. Apple is probably biased against Microsoft because they are competitors in the same industry, so you would want to find a source that has less of a reason to skew the facts related to Microsoft.
5.) Q- Would you consider Ben and Jerry's official Twitter page as a reliable source? Why or why not?
A- Yes, on most occasions with confirmed authenticity of the tweet and intentions of the OP clear about the tweet. But it comes with caution because his account can be hacked and new tweets could be made, which could unfortunately be linked by someone on Wikipedia.
Y Twitter is not generally considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, but it can be in some circumstances: if a company announces their official stance on an issue, for example. See WP:Twitter for more info.
6.) Q- An unnamed "forum official" from the Chicago Tribune community forums comments on the Chicago Tribune's stance on world hunger (on the forum). Is this considered a reliable source? Why or why not?
A- No. 1) Unnamed "forum official" could be anyone on the internet. That's why.
Y There's no way to know who this forum official is and if they are authorized to represent the views of the Chicago Tribune on the whole.
7.) Q- Would you consider the "about us" section on Burger King's website to be a reliable source for information on the history of Burger King? Why or why not?
A- Yes. Because they are ones who know their history better than anyone. If they run into trouble or cover things up for business reasons, it'd be appropriate then to doubt the authenticity of information provided on their website. Either that scenario, or if their website gets compromised and new information is added subsequently then it's invalid and should be corrected right after by editors.
Y While a company knows its own history well, the problem is that companies have a tendency to exaggerate history to draw in more customers. Because of this, it's usually best to use sources like this in combination with other ones for verification.
8.) Q- Everybody knows that the sky is blue except for one editor, who says that it's bronze. Do you need a source to prove to him the sky is blue? Why or why not?
A- Yes. Because his perception may not be reality. First step would be to make them understand the nuances of science and lead them to the right answer.
Y You definitely can use sources to help this editor understand common knowledge (he may be colorblind), but you don't need to put a source in an article about it.
9.) Q- Is Harrison Ford's IMDb profile considered a reliable source for his article on Wikipedia? Why or why not?
A- Yes. Because IMDb is run for maintaining profiles of all celebrities, and generally has reliable information.
N IMDb is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia because it functions similarly to us: almost anyone can create and account and edit it. See WP:Citing IMDb for more information on this one.
@Missionedit: Thanks! I completed the test. Also, I made a new edit while I was casually browsing the Wikipedia on an article. Editing it reminded me I had a test due. Sorry, I know it's been long! :) - Fæz [Faiz7412] (Talk) 15:53, April 2019 (UTC)
@Faiz7412: Hi there :) Glad to see you again--it's been four years! I'm semi-retired right now due to pursuing my education in real life, so it might take me a bit to grade your test. Are you planning on becoming an active editor again? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Faiz7412: After looking over your test, you may want to review WP:Reliable sources again. I want to make sure that you understand this topic well before we move on. Are there any questions on the test that you need clarification on? ~ Anastasia [Missionedit] (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
) to the bottom right. You can add a caption by putting another pipe ( | ) after "|thumb" and before the right brackets and then putting what you want to caption it after the pipe. For example, to achieve the appearance to the right, you would put 
