User talk:Avinesh/Archive 3

Adoption

Great. I'm happy to serve as your mentor.

I've done some informal mentoring of editors but I've never gone through it in a formal way. I'm happy to keep this informal if you wish or I can try to put a more formal framework together. Let me know which you prefer.

I think the first step is for us to introduce ourselves with a little more information than is on our userpages. I got started on Wikipedia a year and a half ago when my son had a 4th-grade project on the Aztecs. I found the article on Hernan Cortes sorely deficient and started to fix it up. After that, I was hooked and I went from there to a bunch of related articles (Tenochtitlan, Siege of Tenochtitlan, Aztec, Spanish conquest of Mexico, etc. etc.)

I was looking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography and saw a request for comment on the Flight and expulsion of Germans during and after WWII and then my WikiCareer was off and running.

I have a very wide range of interests as can be seen from this link.

However, I notice that the articles that I have edited most do seem to be related to Christianity in some way. Don't let this fool you. The Wannabe_Kate tool only shows the top 15 most edited articles (in my case, these are articles to which I have made more than 60 edits). I have plenty of articles that I've made less than 60 edits to that are not related to Christianity.

Please introduce yourself by telling me whatever you would like to about yourself.

The second step would be for you to identify what you would like to learn about Wikipedia. This might be anything from technical details of Wikimarkup (but that is not something I am strong in) to details of various Wiki processes e.g. deletion, page protection, good articles (GA) and featured articles (FA) or Wikipedia policies and guidelines such as notability, reliable sources, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV.

Once we've identified what you want to learn, I will try to share with you what I know and give you pointers to where you can learn more from people who know more than I do.

How does this sound? If you like it, then let's get started. If you don't feel it meets your needs, then feel free to say so and explain what would meet your needs.

--Richard 06:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, can we keep our discussions here instead of my Talk Page? If they're on my Talk Page, it adds to the clutter and will most likely be scattered among the many discussions I have with other editors. If they're kept here, they'll all be in one place for you to reference easily if you need to. If you have a question, just post it here. I have this page on my watchlist so I'll see if you post a question. If I don't answer within a day or two, feel free to leave a reminder on my Talk Page. --Richard 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New pages and recent changes

That’s great, thanks a lot. Before getting into some specific areas where we can work together, I want some help from you. I had been searching for “article created today” or “recently created or edited” stuffs. to make a note. Can you tell me where I can find this page? or something related to this... (I had this before, but unfortunately not able to locate it today) --Avinesh Jose 07:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "make a note" but I think you are looking for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Newpages and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Recentchanges can also be reached by clicking on "Recent changes" in the menu options on the left-hand side of the window.

--Richard 07:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Richard, I meant for the first one you said, which I did not find from the “recent changes” page. Sometimes I did feel a lack of “user friendly” behavior (Usability). [Sorry for "make a note" written by mistake, just ignore]. --Avinesh Jose 08:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating articles for deletion

The next time you nominate an article for deletion, please follow the guidelines at WP:AFD. The AfD you created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EuroBasket 2007 Final was not formatted properly. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the whole 3 steps, please check it again. --Avinesh Jose 09:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You messed the second step up. I fixed it for you. Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EuroBasket 2007 Final

Hi Richard, just check: EuroBasket_2007_Final

I have put deletion tag, just check whether everything is fine or--Avinesh Jose 08:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me that what are the criteria for being an article nominated for deletion? For eg: I had come across an article with no proper reference. What should I do then? Should I use 'unreferenced' tag or subst:afd1 tag (+ other 2 steps)? Because, WP:DEL#REASON says that “Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources” is also considered for speedy deletion. What shall I do

in such situation?. --Avinesh Jose 11:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see... you are a "New pages" patroller. Thanks for taking on that task. I would guess that's how you found Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties in its infancy. I reiterate my advice that you not assume that new articles will stay the way you find them after their first creation. Focus on the truly inappropriate articles and remember to assume good faith. If you believe the article is salvageable, don't recommend it for deletion unless it seems that no one is making an effort to resolve the problems. Asking the author what his/her intentions are is a good start.

There are two sets of criteria for nominating an article for deletion: the critera for speedy deletion outlined in WP:CSD and the criteria for "standard procedure" deletion outlined in WP:DEL.

If an article meets the criteria for speedy deletion, an admin can delete "on sight" without notifying anybody or any further discussion. The deletion is however subject to review at WP:DRV.

As for EuroBasket 2007 Final, I don't think this should be nominated for deletion. In theory, if it's not referenced, you are justified in just deleting the unreferenced text even if it means blanking the entire page. In practice, that angers other editors if the text is true and accurate but just lacking a reference. A more collegial way to proceed is to put an {{unreferenced}} tag on the article or {{citation needed}} tags on specific sentences.

The truth is... if we deleted every unreferenced fact in Wikipedia, we would delete more than half of the text. What people focus on is the unreferenced text that is of questionable validity. In practice, the way it works is that people challenge text that they believe is false or inaccurate and then a discussion ensues about the validity of the text. Some of these discussions erupt into huge arguments that go on for months and involve hundreds of messages back and forth. If you haven't found one of these yet, you will. My advice to you is to keep WP:COOL and be WP:CIVIL.

I make a distinction between sentences that are probably true but don't have a reference and sentences that I think are probably false or based on original research that don't have a reference.

Similarly, I make a distinction between articles that are mostly accurate and those that are non-notable fabrications or original research. Note that I said non-notable fabrications. 9/11 conspiracy theories is an example of a set of notable hypotheses that are not likely true but are documented in Wikipedia as such.

If I believe that an article contains mostly true information that is simply unreferenced, I put an {{unreferenced}} tag at the top. If I believe that an article is unsalvageable, then I nominate it for deletion.

The problem with nominating EuroBasket_2007_Final is that you are basically saying that you don't believe any of it is true and that there's no chance that reliable sources can be found to support the information in the article. Now, I know nothing about European Basketball. If these games have not happened yet, you are perfectly justified in nominating it for deletion. If they have happened and you think the results are probably accurate but simply unreferenced, then you should have used the {{unreferenced}} tag.

Hope this helps. --Richard 15:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I will come back to you asa I am back. I have thoroughly understood all your detailed reply. I read it many times. thankx a lot again. --Avinesh Jose 09:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona hamilton-fairley

You could tag it up if you like, but I think it might be best taken to WP:AFD. The notability is based on one book published by bloomsbury, the other books are self published. It's very weak. If you're unsure of how to take it to AFD let me know and I'll be happy to help. Pedro : Chat 10:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please do the needful--Avinesh Jose 10:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Google shows quite a lot of hits actually [1] as does Amazon. I think notability seems okay, so I've put a reference request tag on it. It certainly needs a tidy up! Best. Pedro : Chat 11:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine, me too was thinking of the same --Avinesh Jose 11:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

irrelevant

There is no requirement that articles have external links; in addition, please see Template:Unreferenced/doc, which explicitly states that you may not use that template on articles that include references. I'm not sure what your attack about it not containing useful content is, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't attack people who are actually adding referenced content to the encyclopedia with your drive-by tagging. The reference I cited documents the article contents; the book is available in many libraries if you'd like to follow up on it. --Delirium 06:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have added the subheading above i.e.’Greek Wine Cellars, instead of marking 'irrelevant' which sounds little odd for me, kindly see: WP:AGF and WP:HAR. Listen, I have checked your article there is only one reference, which goes to a wikipedia page where I could not find neither “Greek Wine Cellars” nor “Kourtaki Wines”. That is the reason why I nominated your article as unreferenced. --Avinesh Jose 06:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure what you mean by "goes to a wikipedia page"; the reference is to a book, not a Wikipedia page. If you look on pages 238 and 239 of that book, you will find an overview of the company, which is the reference I used for writing this article. --Delirium 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]