User:Pratyya Ghosh/CVUA/Sourov0000

Sourov0000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, welcome to your Counter Vandalism Unit Academy 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 about anti-vandalism (or anything else), you are more than welcome to raise them with me at my talk page.

Make sure you read through Wikipedia:Vandalism as that's the knowledge which most of the questions I ask you and tasks you do will revolve around.

How to use this 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. Please always sign your responses to tasks as you would on a talk page.

Examining your Tests

I'll use 3 marks to examine your 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

Lesson 1 (Good Faith and Vandalism)

Twinkle[edit]

One of the best anti-vandalism tools is Twinkle, and is what I recommend all my students use for anti-vandalism work. If you have not already installed it, please do so in the Gadgets section of your Preferences page. Let me know if you need any help; sign below when you have have Twinkle installed.

Hello and thank you for taking me as a student. I am very much thankful to you. Yes, I have installed Twinkle around a month ago and activated it and sometimes use it for my Curation purposes. Thank you. Sourov0000 (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Good faith and vandalism[edit]

When patrolling for vandalism, you may often come across edits which are unhelpful, but not vandalism - these are good faith edits. It is important to recognise the difference between a vandalism edit and a good faith edit, especially because Twinkle gives you the option of labelling edits you revert as such. Please read WP:Vandalism WP:AGF and WP:NOT VANDALISM before getting your tasks.

I have read the 3 Wikipedia policies which you have mentioned and am ready for getting my first task. So, it will be better if I start my first assignment. Thanks a lot. Sourov0000 (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Test (Theoretical)[edit]

All right. Hope you've read everything. Now it's time for the test. I'll take 2 tests. One is theoretical and the other one is practical. Each one will contain 50 marks and the total is 100. Now here's you test.

1.) What is Good Faith and Vandalism. Give their definition and a short description. Tell me the difference between Good Faith and Vandalism. (this question contains 20 marks. It has 5 questions in it. If you give right answer youl get full 20)

A:-

Good Faith: In short Good faith edit is a edit which is done with good intention. In most of the cases, the intention of the editors in Wikipedia are good and they want to enrich or improve the article to which they are editing but because of not being aware about the rules of Wikipedia, they make mistakes. It is mainly a common thing to the new users. But it is also found in veteran Wikipedians. For example: A Wikipedian can think a portion of an article as promotional and remove it but again some other Wikipedian may disagree with him and revert it (It is certainly done as good faith edit)

Great!! 4/4

Definition: If an edit or comment is made with good intention although it doesn't meet the Wikipedia's Guideline, then it can be reverted as good faith edit.

. Right. But as it is definition, you could use "then it is called good faith edit" rather than "it can be reverted as good faith edit". Anyway I wanted to know whether you understand this or not. You answered well. That's why 2/2

Description: Adding copyrighted content, promotional content, personal attacks etc are common mistakes for new editors. It such edits are done in good faith (in most of the cases, they are), we need to deal with the editors with good faith as well. The editor may be instructed about it in his talkpage and we may invite him to read the guideline for New editors or we may even invite him to the Tea House. If they understand their mistake, then they can fix those and even be a good Wikipedian in future.

No problem. 2/2

Vandalism: Vandalism can be considered as adding new content or removal of previous content so that the normal working flow of Wikipedia is jeopardized. Using different type of inappropriate tags, unwanted edit without creating the User Account and editing with multiple account for personal gain (SockPuppet), Creating UserName with unaccepted words, Removing tags from pages (mainly pages under deletion) or adding tags that may lengthen the deletion, blanking a portion or the whole page without any reason, moving pages to self wanted irrelevant page, using copyrighted material (specially image and photo - this occurred to me for several times on my first few days in Wikipedia), changing the edit summary to a convincing one, doing two destructive edit but reverting only one, embedded texts addition (mainly done by people with knowledge of programming language), using blatant hoaxes, spamming, linking to inappropriate pages, using different bots for adding misinformation - all of them can be considered as vandalism if they are done for trolling intention or other personal gain.

Good. I think you understood the main thing. 4/4

Definition: If any user adds any data to an article or removes data from an article for the purpose of self gain or fun purposes, then this edits can be said as vandalism.

Absolutely right. 2/2

Description: Vandalism is prohibited in Wikipedia. Although it is wise to warn the editor who does vandalism. There are 4 level of warning. If a editor continues vandalizing repeatedly, then he may be reported to the admins so that they take necessary measures. If we see vandalism in an article, the first thing we should do is revert it and then warn the editor about it.

Okay. 2/2

Difference between Good Faith and Vandalism: Difference between good faith and vandalism is that Good Faith edits are done with good intention or unintentionally whilst vandalism is done intentionally in most of the cases. If edits are constructive but they don't follow the rules of Wikipedia, then they can be said as Good Faith. But destructive things can be said as vandalism. This is the fundamental difference between the two of them.

Good. You are right. 4/4

So you get 20/20

2.) I am giving you 5 examples. You'll tell me whether they are vandalism or Good faith.(Each one contains 2. The total is 10)

Example-1:- Vandalism (Edit was made by an IP address user and edit has no logical meaning, gibberish and meaningless text and fun purpose)

2/2

Example-2:- Vandalism (the person who protected the page is not an administrator. Template:Sprotected

Yes. If you said it AGF, i would still give you full marks. Cause it can be both Vandal and AGF. 2/2

Example-3:- Good Faith Revert (Although FactStraight removed the content thinking that it was unnecessary or promotional, but as the subject of the article was a prince who lived around 400 years ago, I guess ancestry can be added)

No. Absolutely not. The user removed informations without any summary. That's why it's vandalism. 0/2

Example-4:- Vandalism (As he was a president of the USA, he is obviously an important person and the edit first made by the user was for fun purpose - writing Troll repeatedly and later on this edit, he has mentioned someone named as Josh, maybe a friend, to show that he is making fun of Wikipedia)

Good. 2/2

Example-5:- Vandalism (The user's UserName is something which talks about troll. And he used a word, if looked deeply, is for personal attack. Certainly bad-faith edit)

Username isn't any problem here. The first thing is that it used a word which can be said personal attack But your thought is okay. 2/2

So your total is 8/10

3.) How will you spot Vandalism?

A:-How I will spot vandalism are given below:

First of all, we need to see the recent changes that has occurred to the page from the recent changes log and from there, we have to look deeply into edits which seem suspicious.
Then I need to have a look at my watchlist in a timely basis.
Then if there is any suspicious edit, they need to be compared with the previous stable edit and see if there is any irrelevant thing to the new edit. If a large proportion is missing, then we need to have a better eye on it (It can also be seen by having a look at the amount of byte change of the edit)
In most of the cases, this vandalisms are done by the IP users who do edit without creating any account or by new users. If any users are found as vandal, we can look through his contribution list and also revert any edit which seems as vandalism.
We may also trace the IP addresses if necessary from the WHOIS info.
We can also have look on some test edits (mainly bold, italic, wrong link or reference, garbage text).
There is a feature named auto summary which also can trace vandalism.
We can have a look at the abuse log or the spammer log.
We may use vandalism detecting tools such as Twinkle, STiki, Page Curation, Huggle etc.
But whatever edit or revert we do, we must read through the whole thing to understand the whole scenario.

Good. 10/10

4.) What will you do to respond Vandalism?

A:- I will do the following things to respond to vandalism:

First of all, if I can see or detect a vandalism, I will remove it or revert the edit. But if there is a series of edit by users, then I need to see all the changes because if I don't do so, previous edits (which are vandalism) will be difficult to trace. If we revert edit, we must revert it to a stable version of the article.
If I am not aware of the place where the vandalism has occurred or not completely sure about it, I must discuss the topic on the Talk Page of the article.
I may check my Watchlist to see the recent vandalism edits and if find one, revert or undo it. I should try to find all the vandalism in an article and revert or remove all of them to make Wikipedia free from Vandalism.
If the whole article is full of vandalism, then I must nominate it for Speedy Deletion (G3).
I can also ask for the Rollback right as it is used for reverting the Vandalism even easily. I can ask for it in Permission Request Unit.
If I see a user is Vandalising Wikipedia, then I may also see his other edits and if all of them are vandalism, then I may report the user to the Administrators. But it is better to report him first. There are 4 layers of reporting. If an user persistently keeps vandalising Wikipedia in spite of the warnings, then reporting him to the admins is the best option.
If a vandaliser is using an IP address to vandalise Wikipedia, then we can trace the IP address of the vandaliser and see the WHOis info. If the IP is used by a single user can add {{whois|Name of owner}} tag.
If a vandalism is done on good faith, then we can add the "^{[dubious – discuss]}" tag or if on bad faith, then we can revert the edit and left a warning on the talkpage of the vandalising user.
If a vandalism is done on the CSS file, then it is really difficult to trace and can be confusing on some cases. If the edit or view history tab is disabled for some reason, then we can use the Keyboard Shortcuts to fix these errors.
In the case of image vandalism, if it meets the quality for image vandalism, we can see if it is uploaded on Wikimedia Common or Wikipedia itself. If it is in Wikipedia, then we can nominate it for speedy deletion under G3 tag or if it is on Wikimedia Common, we can simply mark the image as vandalism. If an image is a part of encyclopedia for one article but is vandalism for another article, then we can request the image to be added to the bad image list so it can only be used to the articles permitted.
We mustn't nominate an article for vandalism because of it has vandalism on it.
We mustn't indulge ourselves into editing war. It two fires are combined, they don't put out but increases the amount of it. If the edit war continues, we can report the user to the Administrators.
We mustn't use the word vandal even if the vandalism is done on bad faith.

Absolutely right. 10/10

Well, I think I have finished the first exam. So, I will be waiting for the grade. :) Sourov0000 (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually I made a mistake. I had submitted two questions about Good faith. There was total 6 questions. But unfortunately the other 2 wasn't submitted for internet's reason. As I couldn't submit them. So I'm giving 10 at 3 and 4 no. question.

Result (Theoretical)[edit]

Great job. You've passed the theoretical test. I would let you pass if you've achieved 80%-85% or 40-43 marks. But you've achieved 48 which means 96%. So you've passed. Here's you result.

Result (Lesson 1) (Theoretical)
Question No.	Full Marks	Achieved Marks
1	20	20
2	10	08
3	10	10
4	10	10
TOTAL	50	48

Test (Practical)[edit]

Now spot (just spot and revert, you don't need to warn now. it'll be on next level) and revert 10 Vandalisms or Good Faith edits. Then put the diffs here; (correct detection means 5 marks. wrong means no. Full marks is 50)

1.) Vandalism => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jhenaidah_District&diff=575985097&oldid=569184256

Right. 5/5

2.) Vandalism => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manikganj_District&diff=575956805&oldid=575714763

5/5

3.) Vandalism (Section Blanking) => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sangeet_Natak_Akademi&diff=577404534&oldid=577404420

5/5

4.) Good Faith Revert => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ram_Kapoor&diff=577405110&oldid=577404679

Yeah. Should be AGF. 5/5

5.) Vandalism => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Segunda_Mano&diff=577405988&oldid=577405804

Yeah. 5/5

6.) Vandalism => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eyjafjallaj%C3%B6kull&diff=577406360&oldid=577406204

Vandalism. 5/5

7.) Vandalism (Section Blanking) => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Mockingbird&diff=577408366&oldid=577408317

Right. 5/5

8.) Vandalism (Removing a lot of content without proper reason) => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saloni_Aswani&diff=577432680&oldid=577432394

Good. 5/5

9.) Vandalism (Fun Purpose) => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DDB_Worldwide&diff=577436839&oldid=577436724

Absolutely right. 5/5

10.) Vandalism (Hoax and destructive words) => https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lorenzo_Ghiberti&diff=577437936&oldid=577437699

Yeah. 5/5

Result (Practical)[edit]

Great job. You've passed the practical test. I would let you pass if you've achieved 80%-85% or 40-43 marks. But you've achieved 50 which means 100%. So you've passed. Full marks. Great. Go on like this. Here's you result.

Result (Lesson 1) (Practical)
Question No.	Full Marks	Achieved Marks
1	05	05
2	05	05
3	05	05
4	05	05
5	05	05
6	05	05
7	05	05
8	05	05
9	05	05
10	05	05
TOTAL	50	50

Result (Lesson 1)[edit]

Here's the final result. You have achieved 48 out of 50 in Theoretical and 50 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.

Result (Lesson 1)
Exam name.	Full Marks	Achieved Marks	Percentage
Theoretical	50	48	96
Practical	50	50	100
TOTAL	100	98	98

Thanks a lot Pratyya for the support and not being angry on me for my being late. Sourov0000 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Lesson 2[edit]

Warning and reporting[edit]

As you know, we are using Twinke, which is very useful for warning users. When you use Twinkle to warn a user, you have a number of options to choose from: you can select the kind of warning (for different offences), and the level of warning (from 1 to 4, for increasing severity). Knowing which warning to issue and what level is very important. Further information can be found at WP:UWUL. Also please read WP:VANDALISM.

Hello. I have read both the WP:UWUL and WP:VANDALISM and am ready for this new exam. Thank you. Sourov0000 (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Test (Theoretical)[edit]

This theoretical test contains 80 marks. I'll convert it to 40 when making the result. Good luck.--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 06:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

1.) Please answer the following questions;

1a.) Why do we warn users?

A:- Sometimes users make vandalizing or disruptive edits on Wikipedia. These edits are to be reverted. But while we are reverting the edits, it is good practice to let the user know for which reason his edits are being reverted. From that point of view, the concept of warning users came. We warn the users about the rule violation he has made so that he can be aware of the fact and stop violating the rules from future.

Right. 4/4

1b.) How'll you warn users; (I'm asking about the warning level)

User hasn't received any warnings:- If the warning that is appropriate for the user has the multi level warning property, then in this case, it will be better to use the level-1 warning to the user. But if the user has made severe rule breaking on different occasions but hasn't got any warning, then warning of level-2 or level-3 can also be applied.

2/2

User has received warning previously:- It depends on which warning the user has got first. It is simple practice to warn the user with a higher level warning from the previous warning. In spite of getting the level-4 warning, if an user continues rule breaking, then he can be reported to the administrators so that they can take the necessary steps.

2/2

Yes. Both are right. 4/4

1c.) When would a 4im warning be appropriate?

A:- If an user keeps violating the rules severely, then for warning the user for the last time, we can use this template in his talk page. If any user violates the rule again in spite of getting this template then the best option is to report the user to the Administrators and he will get blocked without any further notice (if the 4im tagging is appropriate).

Absolutely right. 4/4

1d.) What should you do if a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning vandalizes again? Also If a user has vandalized twice but has not received any warnings, what will you do then?

A:- If a user who has received a level 4 or 4im warning and yet again continues vandalizing WIkipedia, then the best option is to report the to the WP:AIV and the Administrators will decide whether to block the user or not.

Good. 2/2

If any user has vandalises twice but hasn't received any warning, then I can warn him with a level-1 {{subst:uw-vandalism1|Article}} warning. As he had vandalized twice and haven't got any warning earlier, then I guess level 1 warning will be appropriate.

2/2

You are right in both case. So 4/4

1e.) In which situations only one warning will be given to a user?

A:- Only one warning will be given to the user in the following circumstances:

All of the edits of the user are on the same page
The user had not received any intervening warning between the edits of his
It is better to use the same user warning template series to warn for each edit

Good. 4/4

2.) Tell me when these templates will be appropiate;

2a.) {{subst:uw-delete}}:- When any user remove contents from a Wikipedia article without explanation, then this warning is used. It also inspires the editor to write edit summary and to use sandbox to do experimental editing.

2/2

2b.) {{subst:uw-vandalism}}:- When the contribution (one or more edit) of an author is not constructive, then this warning is used. It tells the user to use sandbox to do experimental editing.

2/2

2c.) {{subst:uw-npa}}:- This warning is used when comment of a user is not social or civil. In Wikipedia, users must interact with one another respectfully. But if any editor writes something without respect and in a unfriendly way, then this tag is used.

2/2

2d.) {{subst:uw-move}}:- This warning is used if an user moves a page without proper reason. If a page is moved to a different name, then the name must be accurate and appropriate. Besides, it has to be done on the basis of consensus of everyone.

2/2

2e.) {{subst:uw-test}}:- This warning is used when an edit of an user is done for test purpose. It also inspires the user to use Sandbox for test editing.

2/2

2f.) {{subst:uw-joke}}:- This warning is used when users make joke or fun edit. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, people always come here to get the accurate information. So, making fun or joke about article is not allowed in Wikipedia. In those scenarios, this tag is used.

2/2

2g.) {{subst:uw-copyright}}:- If any copyrighted information or photo is used without proper permission, then this tag is used. Also, if contents from any other website is copied and pasted, it also makes the copyright violation. If editors keep doing this copy-vio continuously, then he may get blocked from editing.

2/2

2h.) {{subst:uw-speedy}}:- This tag is used if any editor removes the Speedy Deletion Tag from an article which has been nominated for Speedy Deletion. If the editor doesn't think that the article shouldn't be speedily deleted, then he can contest the Deletion. But removing the tag himself without proper reasoning is against the rule.

2/2

2i.) {{subst:uw-upload}}:- If any upload by the user is not constructive, then this warning is used. There may be two possibilities - either the uploaded material is deleted or will soon be deleted.

Magnificent! 2/2

2j.) {{subst:uw-afd}}:- This tag is used if any user removes the Article for Deletion (AFD) tag from an article or comments of other users from the Talk page of the nominated article for AFD. Instead of removing the AFD tag or comments on the talk page, the user may propose the reason in favor of deletion or keeping.

2/2

3.) Now give 10 more examples of single level warning template and multi-level warning templates and write why and when they should be used.(You should not write different levels of the same warning. Exclude the 10 warnings given up)

3a.) {{subst:uw-affiliate}}:- This warning is used if an user uses Wikipedia for affiliate purpose. This mainly occurs because of Conflict of Interest. This template suggest the user to see the 5 pillars of Wikipedia.

2/2

3b.) {{subst:uw-attack}}:- If an user creates an article which attacks the subject of the article or threatens or disparage the subject, then this warning is used.

2/2

3c.) {{subst:uw-bizlist|ArticleName}}:- This warning template is used if any user tries to promote his business through Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not website like the Yellow Pages. It suggest the user where he can do the publicity of his business organization.

2/2

3d.) {{subst:uw-botun|Reason}}:- This warning template is used on the User Page of the editors whose Username has "-bot" suffix. Mainly "bot" is a reserved keyword for the bot accounts. In this case, the user may request for changing the UserName or create a new account with a different UserName.

2/2

3e.) {{subst:uw-ewsoft|ArticleName}}:- This template of primary warning is used if an User indulges himself into an edit war. Edit war occurs when one user keeps reverting the edits of other users to uphold his own point of view. One or two revert is alright. But if it continues more than tree times within 24 hours timeline, then it goes against the three Revert Rule. This edit war may lead to Blocking. Instead of edit war, it is advised to go to a consensus by talking about the topic of disagreement on the Talk page of the article.

2/2

3f.) {{subst:uw-login|Article}}:- This warning is used when an editor makes edit on Wikipedia without log-in to his account. If edits are make without log-in to one's respective account, then such kind of edits reveals the IP address of the User on the edit summary and it may lead others to know the identity and location of the author. It is against Wikipedia's rule to using multiple account on the same time.

2/2

3g.) {{subst:uw-advert1|ArticleName}}:- This level-1 warning is used when user does edits on Wikipedia which are promotional. Using Wikipedia for advertising and promotional purposes (Soapbox) are not permitted in Wikipedia.

2/2

3h.) {{subst:uw-agf2|ArticleName}}:- This level-2 warning is used if any editor fails to deal with other editors in good faith. This template reminds the user on which article his action was not in good faith and tells him to assume good faith in his further edits.

Yes. 2/2

3i.) {{subst:uw-biog2|ArticleName}}:- This level-2 warning is used on the controversial cases when the user creates an article about someone (living person) which does not have any reference or is poorly referenced (Mainly references from unaccepted sources and non-independent websites).

2/2

3j.) {{subst:uw-chat3|ArticleName}}:- This level-3 warning is used if any user keeps using Talk Pages for inappropriate discussion. This kind of talk is disruptive and it demolishes consensus. The user is also warned for being blocked with this template.

2/2

*(Take help from this and this page when you are answering 4-11)

4.) Suppose User:Ghosh10 is adding advertisements to articles. Which warning will you use to warn him?

A:- {{subst:uw-advert|ArticleName}} Warning. There are 4 level. Normally, the warning will start from level 1 and if the user keeps advertising in spite of warning, the levels will keep increasing.

Good. 2/2

5.) Suppose User:John Kerry has added an original research to John Kerry article. Which warning will be appropriate?

A:- {{subst:uw-autobiography|ArticleName}} Warning. Even if John Kerry is a notable person, he should not create the article about himself. On the contrary, some other Wikipedian will create the article for him sooner or later if he has the notability.

I'll give you full marks cause you thought in other way which is too right. But I wanted {{subst:uw-nor1}}. As I said original research. "nor" means No Original Research. But you'll get

2/2

6.) Suppose I'm vandalizing Airtel article. I'm adding business infos, there marketing. You can tell overall that I'm using WP as business with that article. Which template will be appropriate to warn me?

A:- {{subst:uw-bizlist|ArticleName}} Warning tag can also be added as it is kind of advertising. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and it is not a place for adding business infos. If the user wants to add business info, he can see the Wikipedia Alternatives article to see where he can do so.

Exactly. Remember if I do this don't forget to warn me. Anyone can do business!

2/2

7.) Suppose User:Sachin Tendulkar is editing your talk page without any reason or good reason. Which template will be appropriate to warn him?

A:- {{subst:uw-upv|Article}} Warning. An User Page is the sole property of the user. It is against the rule of Wikipedia to edit other people's User Page. If Saching Tendulkar doesn't like anything about my UserPage, then he must talk about it on my User Talk Page.

Yes, remember you are a new born baby in cricket when you are in front of him. But he's new born in WP. So don't forget to warn the little master!

2/2

8.) Suppose you have a userpage that doesn't follow the policy. Which warning template will be appropriate for you?

A:- {{subst:uw-userpage}} Warning. Becuase the contents on my user page doesn't meet the guideline of User Pages. If I want the user page to be deleted, I can add the Db-userreq tag on top of the User page and an admin will remove it. Or I can change the User Page content so that it meets the guideline.

I'm impressed. 2/2

9.) Suppose User:Barrack Obama is editing wiki. He is doing good. But he isn't writing any edit summary. More than 2000+ edits doesn't have any edit summary. What warning will be appropriate for ~~Mr.President~~ him?

A:- {{subst:Uw-editsummary|ArticleName|Additional Text}} Notice. On the Additional Text, the info about the 2000+ edits without edit summary can also be added. This tag is mainly available on Twinkle. Adding edit summary is good practice as it helps other users to understand what the change was.

Yeah, whether he's ~~Mr. President~~ don't fear him. Straightly warn him!

2/2

10.) Suppose User:Shahid Afridi is continuously editing in Urdu. What warning will be appropriate for him?

A:- {{subst:uw-notenglish}} Warning. This warning will tell the user that the article is not in English and if he may feel free to translate the article to English as it is English Wikipedia.

Your writing is right. But due to the 1= it came template Not English which should be posted to articles.Here I'm AGF

2/2

11.) Suppose User:Salman Khan has created 8 articles and all got deleted. His articles don't follow WP guidelines Which warning will be appropriate?

A:- As Salman Khan has created 8 articles and all of them got deleted, I think {{subst:uw-create3|ArticleName}} tag will be much more appropriate. A level-3 warning. If he still continues, then {{subst:uw-create4|ArticleName}} or {{subst:uw-create4im|ArticleName}} can be added. This warning will tell the user to stop disruptive editing and if he continues, it will tell him that it may lead to Blocking.

It's my mistake that I didn't tell you that user hasn't received any warnings. Anyway your thinking's right. You know the right template, also you know the levels. So '2/2

12.) What's WP:3RR? Tell me everything you know about this. How'll you handle a situation of WP:3RR? What are the exemptions of 3RR?

A:-Definition: 3RR stands for three revert rule. According to this rule, if any user reverts edit in a single article more than 3 times within 24 hours, then the user got engaged in Edit War and 3RR tag is used to warn him.

If any user violates the 3RR, then he may get blocked editing. This blocking may occur for a certain time period or it may be permanent blocking. This reverting may include a whole editing revert or reverting a portion of the edit.

To handle 3RR, I can add the {{subst:uw-3rr|Article}} tag on the Talk page of the user who has committed the violation of doing more than 3 reverts on a single page within 24 hours. This will let the user know that on which article he has made the 3RR.

Exemptions: To avoid blocking, it is wise practice to use the Article's Talk Page to state your reason for reverting. If the opposing editor agrees, then you can do the revert or you can seek the assistance of a third party. The user can leave a request for help at a relevant noticeboard and also can seek dispute resolution. The users who are in edit war can also follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle to get themselves into consensus.

Just bashing! 4/4

Finished. Hello and thank you for taking this very nice exam. I enjoyed taking part in it. I have completed it and am waiting for the result. Sourov0000 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Result (Theoretical)[edit]

Great job. You've passed the theoretical test. This exam's full marks was 80. But I've converted it to 40. Whatever it is you've achieved the full marks 40. 100% marks. Great. Here's your result

Result (Lesson 2) (Theoretical)
Question No.	Full Marks	Achieved Marks
1	20	20
2	20	20
3	20	20
4	2	2
5	2	2
6	2	2
7	2	2
8	2	2
9	2	2
10	2	2
11	2	2
12	4	4
TOTAL	80	80
TOTAL in 40	40	40

Additional Comments[edit]

(talk page stalker) @Pratyya Ghosh: hope you don't mind me stalking here, but your two students have waited for you to mark their work. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 07:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @Jianhui67:. It was planned that I'll examine this today. Due to a problem I was busy these days. Today I'm free. And next time if you want to comment then please use the comment section or my talk page.

--Pratyya ^(Hello!) 13:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Test (Practical)[edit]

Now nothing's perfect without practical. Here do some practical work. Find and revert some vandalism. Warn each user appropriately, using the correct kind of warning and level. Report 2 users at WP:AIV Put the diff of revert and your warning. Remember diff in both case. Don't need to remove and. Just use diffs replacing <Article> and <User Talk Page>

1.)Vandalism revert and Warnings;

1a.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Right-to-farm_laws&diff=579477811&oldid=579477278> and <User Talk Page>

and

Yeah. 2/2

1b.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leona_Lewis_discography&diff=579553116&oldid=579552153> and <User Talk Page>

and

Yeah, user was doing the same work after reversion. 2/2

1c.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Value_engineering&diff=579554107&oldid=579553949> and <User Talk Page>

and

Good. 2/2

1d.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roman_aqueduct&diff=579554922&oldid=579554816> and <User Talk Page>

and

{{subst:uw-test}} is okay, but maybe {{subst:uw-vandalism}} would be the best. Anyway I'm giving you full marks. 2/2

1e.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Santino_Marella&diff=579555403&oldid=579555251> and <User Talk Page>

and

Good job. 2/2

1f.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chinatown%2C_Adelaide&diff=579556421&oldid=579556325> and <User Talk Page>

and

Great!! 2/2

1g.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polyphasic_sleep&diff=579573294&oldid=579573230> and <User Talk Page>

and

Again great!! 2/2

1h.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poisoned_candy_myths&diff=579574023&oldid=579573958> and <User Talk Page>

and

Yeah, a type of vandalism. As that IP made it's first edit there so you could use {{subst:uw-test}} in this case. But vandalism is too right. But not that strong.

2/2

1i.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_science&diff=579574855&oldid=579574817> and <User Talk Page>

and

Yeah IP was warned previously. Should know the policies of WP. 2/2

1j.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Choke_%28novel%29&diff=579581345&oldid=579581259> and <User Talk Page>

and

Good detection. 2/2

1k.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=USS_Philippine_Sea_%28CV-47%29&diff=579581799&oldid=579581664> and <User Talk Page>

and

{{Yeah, but in this case you could use {{tls|uw-error}. User also made joke. You could use {{subst:uw-joke}} as well but it's percentage is 0.001%

. But as user added some wrong ifos also has much talkpage warnings {{subst:uw-vandalism}} is good too. 2/2

1l.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GLBasic&diff=579583678&oldid=579583576> and <User Talk Page>

and ✗

You revert is right. But as user added some wrong information without any reliable source. So.. 1/2

1m.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AEdit_filter%2FFalse_positives%2FReports&diff=579584842&oldid=579584767> and <User Talk Page>

and

Good 2/2

1n.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Halloween_around_the_world&diff=579584830&oldid=579584765> and <User Talk Page>

and ✗

Again revert is right. But warning s not right. {{subst:uw-vandalism}} is more useful here than {{subst:uw-delete}}. Cause user actually didn't only removed contents but also added some nonsense talk. So actually {{subst:uw-vandalism}} is perfect here.. SO again 1/2

1o.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Presidential_IQ_hoax&diff=579586045&oldid=579585958> and <User Talk Page>

and

Speedy okay. 2/2

1p.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMuneeb_Shakil&diff=579592653&oldid=579586526> and <User Talk Page>

and

I couldn't see the revision as the page was deleted. But what I learned from the warning is you are absolutely right. 2/2

1q.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryan_Shawcross&diff=579596623&oldid=579596569> and <User Talk Page>

and

Yeah okay. But it could be {{subst:uw-vandalism3}} as well. Anyway 2/2

1r.) <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Machete_Kills&diff=579597552&oldid=579597490> and <User Talk Page>

and

I giving you marks here. But it has a good chance to warn with {{subst:uw-defamatory}}. But it's vandalism too. SO I'm giving you 2/2